DUST Search - Tank vs AV: In my opinion.

All Channels

General Discussions

Tank vs AV: In my opinion.

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 3 post(s)
Jason Pearson 3300	Posted - 2013.12.13 00:43:00 - [1] - Quote Hello. So as usual with most of my longer posts, CCP I must state this is a general discussion not feedback nor any other board you feel necessary to place it in, while I would like you to read and take interest in the following ideas, I would like to start a discussion with the community, most of which spend their time in GD rather than feedback. So onto the topic of my post, the balancing of AV and Vehicles. There's a problem and a rather large problem that presents itself currently, now before anyone QQs about me being an AV scrub crying about tanks, I am an experienced Tanker and many times I have been biased in the vehicle favour and despite loving this build (am loving it) there is a line in which must admit we're strong for what we are. In this post I suggested we look at removing the speed of the Tanks, not just their nitrous injectors, but their overall movement speed, because it's unfair to those who wait around for their hardeners to drop, timing it correctly only to have the enemy speed away. But I don't think this will be the end of balance, and I also don't think balance can be achieved with the current items in play. You see, if AVers and Tankers continue to ***** at one another and demand nerfs and buffs to their play styles, we're going to be in a never ending tug of war, personally it's not one I'm going to enjoy if we continue this, as many of you feel throughout these nerfs and buffs. Over time we've had godly tanks, then godly AV, then other random things and now we're here, Tanks are strong, AV isn't as strong but can still kill things though not very easily. Which while Tankers will claim it's only fair because teamwork makes tanks easy kills, so? Tanks using teamwork make for easy games full stop. So what we actually need is more content, rather than fight over the same things as of old, we need new ways to kill each other. We've got a great platform right now, you cannot deny these things are a lot more challenging and fun to fight, especially if you're smart, but still (most of the time) offer a way to kill them through vulnerabilities in their actives. So in list format, we need things like these: Speed Nerfs - Tanks run away too easily, it's ridiculous One Hardener on a fit - imo, though I do not speak the views of everyone, two-three hardener setups are ridiculous, and if we ever get advanced/proto tanks with these it's just going to be sad Webifiers - EVE Desc. These things would slow tanks down to a crawl, perhaps Grenade and Mine format, allow Infantry to trigger mines (or both, I'm not your mother) Webifier Counters - The ability to counter a webifier mine/grenade, by activating a module that sends out a wave removing the one that hit you, long cooldowns of course. EMP Weaponry - Weaponry that increases cooldowns, or removes the active on at the time, or just decreases the duration left on the vehicle EMP shielding - more sacrifices allowing you to be immune/less affected by EMP weapons Honestly there's a lot more we can think of if we put our heads together offering viable attacks and counters to make it fair for both parties, it increases diversity and makes the game a lot more enjoyable for all. And before people say "CCP needs to add all these graphics and effects for this to work", you don't. For webifiers, you need a funky sound effect, and maybe something showing the vehicle slowing down, but EMPs just need flux like animations. Again, this platform is wonderful, it's more interesting and more of a laugh, numbers don't mean **** in tank battles any more either, just timing and tactics. If anything else should be added for tanks, it should be more viability to assist one another through the use of modules that buff/debuff other vehicles. Thank you for reading, if you read this far, for the TL;DR just read the list and then say something about it, I'll answer you back asap, that is if anyone actually interested in reading this -¼_-¼ King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire Laugh at the idiots crying about four BPOs being removed erryday, lul
Cosgar ParagonX 8586	Posted - 2013.12.13 00:45:00 - [2] - Quote I think the tank speed is an indication that we'll be getting webs in 1.8. I tried to put a level into Amarr Commando once, but got a server notification saying "Why?"
Jason Pearson 3300	Posted - 2013.12.13 00:47:00 - [3] - Quote Cosgar wrote: I think the tank speed is an indication that we'll be getting webs in 1.8. Even if we do, tank speed still seems a little to fast. shrugs I say that because am running away a lot. King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire Laugh at the idiots crying about four BPOs being removed erryday, lul
Surt gods end Demon Ronin 1294	Posted - 2013.12.13 00:55:00 - [4] - Quote The problem starts when you have 2 or 3 tanks protecting each other. The sheer task of this is from what I see, have caused a lot of the rage here. plus the Speed boost. But I agree with some of those ideas, including the limit to hardeners. As I have posted myself before.. The rope is now yours. (tankers) will you hang yourselves with it? or slow down from getting a fast nerf.
Roger Cordill The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 224	Posted - 2013.12.13 00:55:00 - [5] - Quote Message from Godin: 1: 10-15%speed or 20% acceleration nerf. 2: hardeners are fine. 2 hardener settups can't perma run it, and 3 has no repps. (Not sure if 3 can even perma run it) 3:Agreed on the webs. Anyways, I would love an interdiction device for vehicles. Would demand teamwork to be used. 4: Not sure on the EMP stuff. Sounds pretty OP to me, even with the shielding modules. EWAR is needed more of though. We need tracking disruptors, jammers, and more. 5: webs would probably need a graphic, as people would be complaining about bugs. Plus, they look so cool in EVE, so it would be a shame to not carry it over.
Long Evity 729	Posted - 2013.12.13 00:56:00 - [6] - Quote Sounds like what Dust needs to balance tanks... is less roads! Make the entire map hills and tanks will be GG'd. ... then again, it'll pwn the rest of us, Hills STILL try to eat me. :( I am not who you think I am, only but just a dream.
Commander Tzu L.O.T.I.S. Public Disorder. 67	Posted - 2013.12.13 01:05:00 - [7] - Quote I propose we remove fuel injectors and give a 75% buff to the intelligence of AVers. Maybe have an air raid siren going off continuously while HAVs have their hardeners down? I don't think the glowing-hotter-than-the-sun hardener effect we have right now is really getting through to AVers that the tank has it's hardener on and has high resistance at the moment. P.S. I honestly mean the thing about fuel injectors, I never use the damn things anyway my tank is fast enough without it and it's bugged so its kinda a douche move right now.
Roger Cordill The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 224	Posted - 2013.12.13 01:10:00 - [8] - Quote Commander Tzu wrote: I propose we remove fuel injectors and give a 75% buff to the intelligence of AVers. Maybe have an air raid siren going off continuously while HAVs have their hardeners down? I don't think the glowing-hotter-than-the-sun hardener effect we have right now is really getting through to AVers that the tank has it's hardener on and has high resistance at the moment. P.S. I honestly mean the thing about fuel injectors, I never use the damn things anyway my tank is fast enough without it and it's bugged so its kinda a douche move right now. Message from Godin: Just because you use them, doesn't mean other people doesn't. And it's only the MLT one. Be a man and use a enhanced/complex one.
SponkSponkSponk The Southern Legion The Umbra Combine 582	Posted - 2013.12.13 01:18:00 - [9] - Quote Commander Tzu wrote: I don't think the glowing-hotter-than-the-sun hardener effect we have right now is really getting through to AVers that the tank has it's hardener on and has high resistance at the moment. This would be a decent argument if said hardener effect actually rendered at any useful range. "Pulvis et umbra sumus. (We are but dust and shadow.)" GÇò Horace, The Odes of Horace
Roger Cordill The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 224	Posted - 2013.12.13 01:20:00 - [10] - Quote SponkSponkSponk wrote: Commander Tzu wrote: I don't think the glowing-hotter-than-the-sun hardener effect we have right now is really getting through to AVers that the tank has it's hardener on and has high resistance at the moment. This would be a decent argument if said hardener effect actually rendered at any useful range. message from Godin: It doesn't render? That's bullshit!

Anmol Singh The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 503	Posted - 2013.12.13 01:22:00 - [11] - Quote Jason Pearson wrote: Hello. So as usual with most of my longer posts, CCP I must state this is a general discussion not feedback nor any other board you feel necessary to place it in, while I would like you to read and take interest in the following ideas, I would like to start a discussion with the community, most of which spend their time in GD rather than feedback. So onto the topic of my post, the balancing of AV and Vehicles. There's a problem and a rather large problem that presents itself currently, now before anyone QQs about me being an AV scrub crying about tanks, I am an experienced Tanker and many times I have been biased in the vehicle favour and despite loving this build (am loving it) there is a line in which must admit we're strong for what we are. In this post I suggested we look at removing the speed of the Tanks, not just their nitrous injectors, but their overall movement speed, because it's unfair to those who wait around for their hardeners to drop, timing it correctly only to have the enemy speed away. But I don't think this will be the end of balance, and I also don't think balance can be achieved with the current items in play. You see, if AVers and Tankers continue to ***** at one another and demand nerfs and buffs to their play styles, we're going to be in a never ending tug of war, personally it's not one I'm going to enjoy if we continue this, as many of you feel throughout these nerfs and buffs. Over time we've had godly tanks, then godly AV, then other random things and now we're here, Tanks are strong, AV isn't as strong but can still kill things though not very easily. Which while Tankers will claim it's only fair because teamwork makes tanks easy kills, so? Tanks using teamwork make for easy games full stop. So what we actually need is more content, rather than fight over the same things as of old, we need new ways to kill each other. We've got a great platform right now, you cannot deny these things are a lot more challenging and fun to fight, especially if you're smart, but still (most of the time) offer a way to kill them through vulnerabilities in their actives. So in list format, we need things like these: Speed Nerfs - Tanks run away too easily, it's ridiculous One Hardener on a fit - imo, though I do not speak the views of everyone, two-three hardener setups are ridiculous, and if we ever get advanced/proto tanks with these it's just going to be sad Webifiers - EVE Desc. These things would slow tanks down to a crawl, perhaps Grenade and Mine format, allow Infantry to trigger mines (or both, I'm not your mother) Webifier Counters - The ability to counter a webifier mine/grenade, by activating a module that sends out a wave removing the one that hit you, long cooldowns of course. EMP Weaponry - Weaponry that increases cooldowns, or removes the active on at the time, or just decreases the duration left on the vehicle EMP shielding - more sacrifices allowing you to be immune/less affected by EMP weapons Honestly there's a lot more we can think of if we put our heads together offering viable attacks and counters to make it fair for both parties, it increases diversity and makes the game a lot more enjoyable for all. And before people say "CCP needs to add all these graphics and effects for this to work", you don't. For webifiers, you need a funky sound effect, and maybe something showing the vehicle slowing down, but EMPs just need flux like animations. Again, this platform is wonderful, it's more interesting and more of a laugh, numbers don't mean ** in tank battles any more either, just timing and tactics. If anything else should be added for tanks, it should be more viability to assist one another through the use of modules that buff/debuff other vehicles. Thank you for reading, if you read this far, for the TL;DR just read the list and then say something about it, I'll answer you back asap, that is if anyone actually interested in reading this -¼_-¼ LOL, no bro, i need 2 hardners! Sagaris lover!!!**
Commander Tzu L.O.T.I.S. Public Disorder. 67	Posted - 2013.12.13 01:27:00 - [12] - Quote SponkSponkSponk wrote: Commander Tzu wrote: I don't think the glowing-hotter-than-the-sun hardener effect we have right now is really getting through to AVers that the tank has it's hardener on and has high resistance at the moment. This would be a decent argument if said hardener effect actually rendered at any useful range. I can see them when I am in my suit from ranges where enemy suits don't even render so I doubt this is true.
Commander Tzu L.O.T.I.S. Public Disorder. 67	Posted - 2013.12.13 01:32:00 - [13] - Quote Roger Cordill wrote: Commander Tzu wrote: I propose we remove fuel injectors and give a 75% buff to the intelligence of AVers. Maybe have an air raid siren going off continuously while HAVs have their hardeners down? I don't think the glowing-hotter-than-the-sun hardener effect we have right now is really getting through to AVers that the tank has it's hardener on and has high resistance at the moment. P.S. I honestly mean the thing about fuel injectors, I never use the damn things anyway my tank is fast enough without it and it's bugged so its kinda a douche move right now. Message from Godin: Just because you don't use them, doesn't mean other people doesn't. And it's only the MLT one. Be a man and use a enhanced/complex one. Oh, and where am I supposed to fit my frakkin' beef jerky machine?!
Gelan Corbaine Gladiators Vanguard 248	Posted - 2013.12.13 01:33:00 - [14] - Quote Commander Tzu wrote: SponkSponkSponk wrote: Commander Tzu wrote: I don't think the glowing-hotter-than-the-sun hardener effect we have right now is really getting through to AVers that the tank has it's hardener on and has high resistance at the moment. This would be a decent argument if said hardener effect actually rendered at any useful range. I can see them when I am in my suit from ranges where enemy suits don't even render so I doubt this is true. It happens from time to time with the armor hardener ....... shield renders fine though. No job is worth doing if you don't get paid in the end .
BobThe 844-1 CakeMan Murder Cakes Of Doom 1249	Posted - 2013.12.13 01:33:00 - [15] - Quote i only use 1 hardener now. why use more? Lol. my 330 rep a sec tank is much more effective than 180 reps a sec with 2 hards. want to know why. because my tanks reps r insane. Bro. O_o Tank driver. 10 mil SP in tanks 8 mil into infantry. Msg my main BobThe843CakeMan I ring for everyone. :D
Jason Pearson 3306	Posted - 2013.12.13 01:35:00 - [16] - Quote BobThe 844-1 CakeMan wrote: i only use 1 hardener now. why use more? Lol. my 330 rep a sec tank is much more effective than 180 reps a sec with 2 hards. want to know why. because my tanks reps r insane. Bro. O_o Because Shield Tankers are dirty little fucks. Talk to a tanker "Why you using only 1 hardener bro? you can use two" because it's a dirty tactic and isn't playing fair, at all, you're just kidding yourself if you think you're good because of it. ambitter2daysin King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire Laugh at the idiots crying about four BPOs being removed erryday, lul
BobThe 844-1 CakeMan Murder Cakes Of Doom 1249	Posted - 2013.12.13 01:38:00 - [17] - Quote Jason Pearson wrote: BobThe 844-1 CakeMan wrote: i only use 1 hardener now. why use more? Lol. my 330 rep a sec tank is much more effective than 180 reps a sec with 2 hards. want to know why. because my tanks reps r insane. Bro. O_o Because Shield Tankers are dirty little fucks. Talk to a tanker "Why you using only 1 hardener bro? you can use two" because it's a dirty tactic and isn't playing fair, at all, you're just kidding yourself if you think you're good because of it. ambitter2daysin well i'm an armor tank so i wouldn't know. but i would imagine 2 hardened shield tanks would be hard to kill. but then again in a 1 v 2 tank fight i killed one tank went for the other one and he ran away because his hards were down and didn't have ze reps like me. O_o. this was a PC match. and they were both shooting me at the same time. O_o. also i 1 v 1 a missile damage modded gunnlogi with my rail maddy in close quarters and he had the jump on me. Tank driver. 10 mil SP in tanks 8 mil into infantry. Msg my main BobThe843CakeMan I ring for everyone. :D
Flix Keptick Red Star. EoN. 1562	Posted - 2013.12.13 01:41:00 - [18] - Quote Cosgar wrote: I think the tank speed is an indication that we'll be getting webs in 1.8. I hope so, that would be awesome. Way more exiting than right now Making AV an actual role GÿåTank DriverGÿå
Flix Keptick Red Star. EoN. 1562	Posted - 2013.12.13 01:46:00 - [19] - Quote SponkSponkSponk wrote: Commander Tzu wrote: I don't think the glowing-hotter-than-the-sun hardener effect we have right now is really getting through to AVers that the tank has it's hardener on and has high resistance at the moment. This would be a decent argument if said hardener effect actually rendered at any useful range. That's a problem with rendering, not balance Making AV an actual role GÿåTank DriverGÿå
Michael Hyperthraz Vherokior Combat Logistics Minmatar Republic 15	Posted - 2013.12.13 01:48:00 - [20] - Quote Cheap unkillable militia tanks everywhere! Nothing that cost 70-80k should be so overpowered.

Roger Cordill The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 225	Posted - 2013.12.13 01:55:00 - [21] - Quote Michael Hyperthraz wrote: Cheap unkillable militia tanks everywhere! Nothing that cost 70-80k should be so overpowered. Those things are paper. This is Rog talking.
ratamaq doc Edge Regiment 236	Posted - 2013.12.13 01:55:00 - [22] - Quote Roger Cordill wrote: Message from Godin: 1: 10-15%speed or 20% acceleration nerf. 2: hardeners are fine. 2 hardener settups can't perma run it, and 3 has no repps. (Not sure if 3 can even perma run it) No, but 2 cplx hardeners leave only a 14 second engagement window. I like these ideas, the more ways to engage the better, it makes intel gathering worth it as appose to "look tank, switch to my AV Swarm fit, never heard of the guy, let's roll with a STD setup" it felt good to rebuild a flux swarm fit last night. I bought a few AUR PLCs to give them a try also. I may run out of fitting room though if we get all new grenades and equipment, I've already reached my limit. I would like to make this suggestion though. Though I do agree that I'm here to kill vehicles, not detour them. I was in a game the night before last one peaks where two tank took the high ground above C, one was a Rail, the socket was the one where the hack point was completely exposed from that vantage point. C was unhackable on our side but the team managed to deny it to the reds also. Manus peaks, 4 - 5 minutes into the game and C is still yellow 0.o. Anyway I knew I wasn't going to kill these fools alone, but I swapped to AV anyway and suppressed them for half the game. When 3-1, dealt over 50k damage, was the reason we were able to capture that point, was sitting like 12th on the leader board. It was boring as **** , but needed to be done. What would be a fair way to compensate me for that that would not be exploitable? If there is an argument to be made about infantry doing there job if they are causing tanks to disengage, then we should be compensated for it, because there are times when it is the strategically correct thing to do. Thoughts there? Another thing you didn't touch on was price. I think tanks were too expensive before, but now they are ridiculously Cheap. So cheap that it really isn't worth going after. The thing I think tankers forget is that I didn't start the game in an AV fit, by going after them I am no longer supporting my team, hacking points, or shooting reds which is what I WANT to be doing. I would never consider driving all the way to a supply depot to change out fits for a single proto merc on the field. Knowing that I am removing upwards of 500k average ISK was worth it. YouTube 30D Recruiting
Roger Cordill The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 226	Posted - 2013.12.13 02:02:00 - [23] - Quote message from Godin: That's for shields. Can't believe I'm saying this, but nerf shield hardeners.
Jason Pearson 3307	Posted - 2013.12.13 02:05:00 - [24] - Quote ratamaq doc wrote: Roger Cordill wrote: Message from Godin: 1: 10-15%speed or 20% acceleration nerf. 2: hardeners are fine. 2 hardener settups can't perma run it, and 3 has no repps. (Not sure if 3 can even perma run it) No, but 2 cplx hardeners leave only a 14 second engagement window. I like these ideas, the more ways to engage the better, it makes intel gathering worth it as appose to "look tank, switch to my AV Swarm fit, never heard of the guy, let's roll with a STD setup" it felt good to rebuild a flux swarm fit last night. I bought a few AUR PLCs to give them a try also. I may run out of fitting room though if we get all new grenades and equipment, I've already reached my limit. I would like to make this suggestion though. Though I do agree that I'm here to kill vehicles, not detour them. I was in a game the night before last one peaks where two tank took the high ground above C, one was a Rail, the socket was the one where the hack point was completely exposed from that vantage point. C was unhackable on our side but the team managed to deny it to the reds also. Manus peaks, 4 - 5 minutes into the game and C is still yellow 0.o. Anyway I knew I wasn't going to kill these fools alone, but I swapped to AV anyway and suppressed them for half the game. When 3-1, dealt over 50k damage, was the reason we were able to capture that point, was sitting like 12th on the leader board. It was boring as **** , but needed to be done. What would be a fair way to compensate me for that that would not be exploitable? If there is an argument to be made about infantry doing there job if they are causing tanks to disengage, then we should be compensated for it, because there are times when it is the strategically correct thing to do. Thoughts there? Another thing you didn't touch on was price. I think tanks were too expensive before, but now they are ridiculously Cheap. So cheap that it really isn't worth going after. The thing I think tankers forget is that I didn't start the game in an AV fit, by going after them I am no longer supporting my team, hacking points, or shooting reds which is what I WANT to be doing. I would never consider driving all the way to a supply depot to change out fits for a single proto merc on the field. Knowing that I am removing upwards of 500k average ISK was worth it. Thanks for going through and replying :) also 2 hardeners on shields with the skills done on cooldown reduction and increased duration gives a 10 second window of attack time, some shield tankers run 3 hardeners just to show how terribad they are. I think a way to do it would be to have warpoints for damage, 25 for say every 1000, a bit more? I usually throw ideas out there and hope someone else could come up with numbers, those AVers that do suppress should be rewarded for the effort. Pricing, it's around 500k for me to run my fit, which I feel is a little cheap, perhaps upping the Hull price on vehicles would be a good course of action, I mean look at the Sica/Soma's, they're at 59,565 and come with weapons, so it's peanuts to keep chucking them at things. same with Gunnlogi/Madrugars, they're 97,500, I was always fine with the standards costing around 200k. King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire Laugh at the idiots crying about four BPOs being removed erryday, lul
Jason Pearson 3309	Posted - 2013.12.13 02:13:00 - [25] - Quote Roger Cordill wrote: message from Godin: That's for shields. Can't believe I'm saying this, but nerf shield hardeners. Erm, Complex with no skills CD: 50s - AD: 36 Complex with 25% reduction CD: 37.5 - AD: 45 King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire Laugh at the idiots crying about four BPOs being removed erryday, lul
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. Public Disorder. 2261	Posted - 2013.12.13 02:16:00 - [26] - Quote Thanks for the sensibility. It's honestly refreshing. Remove time in battle from ISK payout formula and provide a bonus to winning team... Watch battles become fun again.
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 1932	Posted - 2013.12.13 02:20:00 - [27] - Quote Long Evity wrote: Sounds like what Dust needs to balance tanks... is less roads! Make the entire map hills and tanks will be GG'd. ... then again, it'll pwn the rest of us, Hills STILL try to eat me. :( I could picture my heavy trying to go up those hills. It wouldn't end well DUST 514 just went full COD. Never go full COD.
gbghg L.O.T.I.S. Public Disorder. 4153	Posted - 2013.12.13 02:41:00 - [28] - Quote this is the kind of discussion i'm talking about. civil, full of interesting ideas, and useful. anyway i find myself liking pretty much all of your suggestions jason, except for the hardener one, i dislike arbitrary fitting restrictions, gives us less room to play around with (not like that's much right now with like 6-7 module types top). besides i don't really see the benefit to running more than 1 hardener on a fit, given stacking penalties and the way resists work i just don't think they're worth more than 1 slot. anyway getting a tad off topic there. personally i'm finding the LP store to be a great way to save isk, by switching over to State XT-1's i've reduced my python fit's cost from 503K to 416K, i'm eager to see what other areas i can save isk in. Lv 4 forum warrior Bringer of Bacon Knight of AMV's
Jason Pearson 3313	Posted - 2013.12.13 02:46:00 - [29] - Quote gbghg wrote: this is the kind of discussion i'm talking about. civil, full of interesting ideas, and useful. anyway i find myself liking pretty much all of your suggestions jason, except for the hardener one, i dislike arbitrary fitting restrictions, gives us less room to play around with (not like that's much right now with like 6-7 module types top). besides i don't really see the benefit to running more than 1 hardener on a fit, given stacking penalties and the way resists work i just don't think they're worth more than 1 slot. anyway getting a tad off topic there. personally i'm finding the LP store to be a great way to save isk, by switching over to State XT-1's i've reduced my python fit's cost from 503K to 416K, i'm eager to see what other areas i can save isk in. Thing is, it's not about running them at the same time, but when you can run them constantly without becoming vunerable, with two hardeners I'm pretty much unstoppable, with three you just have the extra one just in case, I mean I was running two with my rail (cos rail fights and rails being ridiculous) and activate them at the same time, there's a massive difference, before I'd be two shotted from a proto, now its taken 6 shots to lose my shields. by then I'm back in cover and regening. It's just rather silly. King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire Laugh at the idiots crying about four BPOs being removed erryday, lul
gbghg L.O.T.I.S. Public Disorder. 4155	Posted - 2013.12.13 03:13:00 - [30] - Quote Jason Pearson wrote: gbghg wrote: this is the kind of discussion i'm talking about. civil, full of interesting ideas, and useful. anyway i find myself liking pretty much all of your suggestions jason, except for the hardener one, i dislike arbitrary fitting restrictions, gives us less room to play around with (not like that's much right now with like 6-7 module types top). besides i don't really see the benefit to running more than 1 hardener on a fit, given stacking penalties and the way resists work i just don't think they're worth more than 1 slot. anyway getting a tad off topic there. personally i'm finding the LP store to be a great way to save isk, by switching over to State XT-1's i've reduced my python fit's cost from 503K to 416K, i'm eager to see what other areas i can save isk in. Thing is, it's not about running them at the same time, but when you can run them constantly without becoming vunerable, with two hardeners I'm pretty much unstoppable, with three you just have the extra one just in case, I mean I was running two with my rail (cos rail fights and rails being ridiculous) and activate them at the same time, there's a massive difference, before I'd be two shotted from a proto, now its taken 6 shots to lose my shields. by then I'm back in cover and regening. It's just rather silly. yeah i know judge is rather found of his 3 hardener fit, i sadly lack the optimization skills to run 3 complex hardeners and have taken a liking to being able to rep 900 hp in a second thanks to my booster. i just think that there's a better way to balance this than limiting what modules can be fitted. Lv 4 forum warrior Bringer of Bacon Knight of AMV's

LuckyLuke Wargan HavoK Core RISE of LEGION 254	Posted - 2013.12.13 03:39:00 - [31] - Quote I like how this post is suposed to be unbias yet only tankers are posting... As a swarmer range has been nerf to a pulp, tankers are moving too fast for us to get a lock on, damage is too low as well, as it takes me 4 proto shot to down a militia tank, we are talking proto vs militia here, it prove that when proto tanks come out, swarm will be totally inefective. My 2 cents, I know my comment will be drowned by the masses of "unbias" tankers populating these forums. "Cry HavoK!, and let slip the dogs of war!" -Medical/Intel Logibro and Swarm Commando-
Jason Pearson 3313	Posted - 2013.12.13 03:43:00 - [32] - Quote LuckyLuke Wargan wrote: I like how this post is suposed to be unbias yet only tankers are posting... As a swarmer range has been nerf to a pulp, tankers are moving too fast for us to get a lock on, damage is too low as well, as it takes me 4 proto shot to down a militia tank, we are talking proto vs militia here, it prove that when proto tanks come out, swarm will be totally inefective. My 2 cents, I know my comment will be drowned by the masses of "unbias" tankers populating these forums. Son did you even read the post? Or did you just jump straight in guns blazing to cry? King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire Laugh at the idiots crying about four BPOs being removed erryday, lul
Thurak1 Psygod9 D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 421	Posted - 2013.12.13 03:43:00 - [33] - Quote Jason Pearson wrote: Cosgar wrote: I think the tank speed is an indication that we'll be getting webs in 1.8. Even if we do, tank speed still seems a little to fast. shrugs I say that because am running away a lot. its a very obvious typo actually. the militia fuel injector gives 100% speed boost. The proto version gives 30% so i am betting it should only be 10%.
Jason Pearson 3313	Posted - 2013.12.13 03:45:00 - [34] - Quote Thurak1 wrote: Jason Pearson wrote: Cosgar wrote: I think the tank speed is an indication that we'll be getting webs in 1.8. Even if we do, tank speed still seems a little to fast. shrugs I say that because am running away a lot. its a very obvious typo actually. the militia fuel injector gives 100% speed boost. The proto version gives 30% so i am betting it should only be 10%. Mate, seriously, you need to read. A lot of you need to learn to read things. I'm not talking about a bugged militia injector, WHICH is now fixed at 30% by the way. So stop. King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire Laugh at the idiots crying about four BPOs being removed erryday, lul
gbghg L.O.T.I.S. Public Disorder. 4155	Posted - 2013.12.13 03:48:00 - [35] - Quote LuckyLuke Wargan wrote: I like how this post is suposed to be unbias yet only tankers are posting... As a swarmer range has been nerf to a pulp, tankers are moving too fast for us to get a lock on, damage is too low as well, as it takes me 4 proto shot to down a militia tank, we are talking proto vs militia here, it prove that when proto tanks come out, swarm will be totally inefective. My 2 cents, I know my comment will be drowned by the masses of "unbias" tankers populating these forums. proto vehicles will never happen if CCP has any sense, and i get the feeling that the CPM would do everything in their power to stop it if was being taken seriously. so there's no need to worry their. Lv 4 forum warrior Bringer of Bacon Knight of AMV's
AetherFall Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 5	Posted - 2013.12.13 04:04:00 - [36] - Quote Cosgar wrote: I think the tank speed is an indication that we'll be getting webs in 1.8. AV will die too quickly to use them. And the AV suits will still cost more than the tanks... I don't think that is a balance.
Jason Pearson 3318	Posted - 2013.12.13 04:38:00 - [37] - Quote Bump.. King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire Laugh at the idiots crying about four BPOs being removed erryday, lul
Skihids Unkn0wn Killers Renegade Alliance 2513	Posted - 2013.12.13 05:04:00 - [38] - Quote Making "Waves of Opportunity" work The "waves of opportunity" philosophy says a vehicle can engage very powerfully for a limited amount of time before disengaging for cool down. The idea is that the advantage of near immunity is counter balanced by being out of combat for an extended period, leaving your team a man down. For this to work the cool down must be proportional to the extra damage the player can inflict, and that seems to be where the plan is breaking down. A large turret can out DPS a light infantry weapon by a fair multiple, but that's not the only advantage. The HAV pilot doesn't have to actively avoid return fire so he is more effective while invulnerable. That suggests the active period should be a small fraction of the cool down. Complex hardeners with L5 backup skills make this a near 1:1 ratio. CCP intends vehicles to be used to breach a heavily defended objective, but the pilot doesn't just wait to be called in and may prefer to go after soft targets instead. A pilot wandering around the edge of battle might not have to activate hardeners at all. He can be invulnerable to light weapons for an extended period of time until engaged by serious AV. All this suggests that a vehicle is a force multiplier. One player becomes as effective as two or more with boots on the ground. I'm not sure what the best fix is. If you increase cool down times enough to balance them damage wise you risk benching them for 3/4 of the match and pilots will complain about boredom. Webifiers could achieve a decent balance and CCP alluded to that a year ago, but there's nary a word about it in months so it's not likely to help out soon.
Zaria Min Deir Ancient Exiles. Renegade Alliance 341	Posted - 2013.12.13 05:04:00 - [39] - Quote I'd say something insightful, but I haven't slept properly in days... so +10000 Have you considered installing the improved keyboard? "Go Go Power Rangers!"
Heinz Doofenshertz BetaMax. 596	Posted - 2013.12.13 05:19:00 - [40] - Quote While I agree certain things should be done. and this is one of the better arguements I have seen, and is well laid out. it's not really a discussion of tanks vs AV, it's a discussion of tanks themselves. which is fine. AV is made to kill tanks, new tanks are made to counter the current av, then new av is made to counter that. it's a never ending waltz Dust514 Stats, Have you updated today? I do maths, and sit in a corner.

Commander Tzu L.O.T.I.S. Public Disorder. 69	Posted - 2013.12.13 05:24:00 - [41] - Quote The main problem I have seen is lack of AV in FW and pub. I ran a ton of gallente and minmatar FW, about 15 games, and saw a whopping 4 people try to kill me with AV. Two when I was in an armor tank and two when I was in shield tanks. The first time in the armor tank I was in a madrugar with proto modules and they used standard swarms; very low threat level. The second time though, I got hit with proto swarms and dayum: about 2k damage off my 5k armor right away. Put my hardener on and got hit two more times, made it out with about 1300hp thanks to a brave building that sacrificed itself =(. With the shield tank, a different story. I saw the swarms coming this time, and hit my hardener and these proto swarms bounced off, I actually tried to run him over but he got pushed to the side of my tank and threw flux nades at me. Let me tell you, when you only have 3.3k shield hp fluxs hurt even with 60% dmg reduction. Proto av is still potent, it is just not as common. Now, maybe some things need to change but right now I think it's difficult to tell what changes are really needed, people are running around with rail rifles and combat rifles even when there are tanks right in front of them. If we had as many proto AV in matches now as we did before 1.7 none of these militia tanks would survive and then people would stop calling them in and go back to their suits, then the proto av can concentrate on the proto tanks and then we can see how this all works out.
The Robot Devil Molon Labe. Public Disorder. 1315	Posted - 2013.12.13 06:05:00 - [42] - Quote I am a part time AV and you can keep the crazy speed of the HAV and all the modules the way they are as long as you provide a web version of every explosive grenade and mine. We need at least a light and heavy web grenade and at least two types of mines. I would suggest that one mine be wide area that deploys instantly like a NH and a smaller version that deploys like the RE. These four things would fix any speed problems we have and create more diversity in the game. Some of the best things ever conceived was by accident and this bug could be one of them. I vote don't change anything and just add some counters to the screw up. The forums haven't been this positive in a while and I don't see why it's a bad thing or needs changing. Standard Web Same range and stats as a standard flux but creates a 5m bubble with a 10% drop in speed for 7s where ever it lands. Sleek Web Same range and stats as a sleek but creates a 3m bubble with a 10% drop in speed for 5s where ever it lands. Packed Web Same range and stats as a packed but creates a 7m bubble with a 10% drop in speed for 7s where ever it lands. Drop Web Works like a nanohive but has a 5 second deploy time and a 12m bubble dropping speed by 25%, the web would only last for one minute 30 seconds. Remote Web Works like a RE with the bubble being activated whenever the merc wants. The bubble would not have a deploy timer. The 10m bubble would have a speed drop of 25% and only last for 25s. Works on friend or foe and skills would change stats like deploy time, speed drop, lifespan and bubble area. Of course my numbers are me just me throwing things out so feel free to change what is needed. I don't think it is time to nerf anything, I think it is time to drop more skills and modules along with more suits and weapons. Lets use this opportunity to gain something. No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride.
Jason Pearson 3323	Posted - 2013.12.13 06:14:00 - [43] - Quote The Robot Devil wrote: I am a part time AV and you can keep the crazy speed of the HAV and all the modules the way they are as long as you provide a web version of every explosive grenade and mine. We need at least a light and heavy web grenade and at least two types of mines. I would suggest that one mine be wide area that deploys instantly like a NH and a smaller version that deploys like the RE. These four things would fix any speed problems we have and create more diversity in the game. Some of the best things ever conceived was by accident and this bug could be one of them. I vote don't change anything and just add some counters to the screw up. The forums haven't been this positive in a while and I don't see why it's a bad thing or needs changing. Standard Web Same range and stats as a standard flux but creates a 5m bubble with a 10% drop in speed for 7s where ever it lands. Sleek Web Same range and stats as a sleek but creates a 3m bubble with a 10% drop in speed for 5s where ever it lands. Packed Web Same range and stats as a packed but creates a 7m bubble with a 10% drop in speed for 7s where ever it lands. Drop Web Works like a nanohive but has a 5 second deploy time and a 12m bubble dropping speed by 25%, the web would only last for one minute 30 seconds. Remote Web Works like a RE with the bubble being activated whenever the merc wants. The bubble would not have a deploy timer. The 10m bubble would have a speed drop of 25% and only last for 25s. Works on friend or foe and skills would change stats like deploy time, speed drop, lifespan and bubble area. Of course my numbers are me just me throwing things out so feel free to change what is needed. I don't think it is time to nerf anything, I think it is time to drop more skills and modules along with more suits and weapons. Lets use this opportunity to gain something. I think the web "grenades" should hit them rather than having a bubble, or have a bubble but forget the sleek and packed, keep it simple, Speed should also be massively reduced, I mean, by like 50-75% if we're keeping the current speed as you have suggested. R.Es should be the strongest, again slowing them down massively, and should also add a proxy version that isn't as strong. Makes for good traps :) King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire Laugh at the idiots crying about four BPOs being removed erryday, lul
The Robot Devil Molon Labe. Public Disorder. 1316	Posted - 2013.12.13 06:31:00 - [44] - Quote Makes for good traps and adds another role that a scout can outperform other suits. Scouts are fast tackle and I wouldn't be opposed to having a tool that drains speed or something similar. A squad of scouts could hold and destroy a vehicle with teamwork. Two tackle scouts and four PC scouts would be hard on a vehicle. I am afraid that anything more than 20-25% speed reduction would be too much if multiple webs were used. It has to be fair to everyone and kept fun. We need fun and content, badly. No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride.
Jason Pearson 3323	Posted - 2013.12.13 06:38:00 - [45] - Quote The Robot Devil wrote: Makes for good traps and adds another role that a scout can outperform other suits. Scouts are fast tackle and I wouldn't be opposed to having a tool that drains speed or something similar. A squad of scouts could hold and destroy a vehicle with teamwork. Two tackle scouts and four PC scouts would be hard on a vehicle. I am afraid that anything more than 20-25% speed reduction would be too much if multiple webs were used. It has to be fair to everyone and kept fun. We need fun and content, badly. Oh right, for multiple hits, I was looking at it as more of a one thing at a time kind of deal, didn't matter if 3 hit, the 1st would negate the rest. Reason being is I can see it now, everyone with web grenades just lobbing them and freezing anything that comes past lol. King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire Laugh at the idiots crying about four BPOs being removed erryday, lul
The Robot Devil Molon Labe. Public Disorder. 1316	Posted - 2013.12.13 06:47:00 - [46] - Quote yeah, a tool @ 10% and two mines @ 25% would drop something about 50% of its speed. Add another mine @ 25% would knock it down to only about 40%. Too much more and more than a few webs would make it crawl. The acutal percentage drop would probably be lower than the ones I have. It maybe even closer to half of the values I use. No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride.

CCP Remnant C C P C C P Alliance 470	Posted - 2013.12.13 07:20:00 - [47] - Quote ratamaq doc wrote: Roger Cordill wrote: Message from Godin: 1: 10-15%speed or 20% acceleration nerf. 2: hardeners are fine. 2 hardener settups can't perma run it, and 3 has no repps. (Not sure if 3 can even perma run it) No, but 2 cplx hardeners leave only a 14 second engagement window. I like these ideas, the more ways to engage the better, it makes intel gathering worth it as appose to "look tank, switch to my AV Swarm fit, never heard of the guy, let's roll with a STD setup" it felt good to rebuild a flux swarm fit last night. I bought a few AUR PLCs to give them a try also. I may run out of fitting room though if we get all new grenades and equipment, I've already reached my limit. I would like to make this suggestion though. Though I do agree that I'm here to kill vehicles, not detour them. I was in a game the night before last one peaks where two tank took the high ground above C, one was a Rail, the socket was the one where the hack point was completely exposed from that vantage point. C was unhackable on our side but the team managed to deny it to the reds also. Manus peaks, 4 - 5 minutes into the game and C is still yellow 0.o. Anyway I knew I wasn't going to kill these fools alone, but I swapped to AV anyway and suppressed them for half the game. When 3-1, dealt over 50k damage, was the reason we were able to capture that point, was sitting like 12th on the leader board. It was boring as **** , but needed to be done. What would be a fair way to compensate me for that that would not be exploitable? If there is an argument to be made about infantry doing there job if they are causing tanks to disengage, then we should be compensated for it, because there are times when it is the strategically correct thing to do. Thoughts there? Another thing you didn't touch on was price. I think tanks were too expensive before, but now they are ridiculously Cheap. So cheap that it really isn't worth going after. The thing I think tankers forget is that I didn't start the game in an AV fit, by going after them I am no longer supporting my team, hacking points, or shooting reds which is what I WANT to be doing. I would never consider driving all the way to a supply depot to change out fits for a single proto merc on the field. Knowing that I am removing upwards of 500k average ISK was worth it. We had damage-based WP many moons ago but they were removed because of WP farming. Now, however, we have a global limiter that prevents mass-WP farming so it's definitely something I'd like to add back. If it's not possible to hot-fix in I'll poke the guys about getting in for 1.8. I think it's fair enough that you get rewarded for chasing off vehicles if not being able to outright destroy them. That said, we hot-fixed the militia fuel injector last night. And right now we're testing increased recharge times on fuel injectors and slightly reduced speed on HAVs.

Cosgar ParagonX 8627	Posted - 2013.12.13 07:22:00 - [48] - Quote CCP Remnant wrote: ratamaq doc wrote: Roger Cordill wrote: Message from Godin: 1: 10-15%speed or 20% acceleration nerf. 2: hardeners are fine. 2 hardener settups can't perma run it, and 3 has no repps. (Not sure if 3 can even perma run it) No, but 2 cplx hardeners leave only a 14 second engagement window. I like these ideas, the more ways to engage the better, it makes intel gathering worth it as appose to "look tank, switch to my AV Swarm fit, never heard of the guy, let's roll with a STD setup" it felt good to rebuild a flux swarm fit last night. I bought a few AUR PLCs to give them a try also. I may run out of fitting room though if we get all new grenades and equipment, I've already reached my limit. I would like to make this suggestion though. Though I do agree that I'm here to kill vehicles, not detour them. I was in a game the night before last one peaks where two tank took the high ground above C, one was a Rail, the socket was the one where the hack point was completely exposed from that vantage point. C was unhackable on our side but the team managed to deny it to the reds also. Manus peaks, 4 - 5 minutes into the game and C is still yellow 0.o. Anyway I knew I wasn't going to kill these fools alone, but I swapped to AV anyway and suppressed them for half the game. When 3-1, dealt over 50k damage, was the reason we were able to capture that point, was sitting like 12th on the leader board. It was boring as **** , but needed to be done. What would be a fair way to compensate me for that that would not be exploitable? If there is an argument to be made about infantry doing there job if they are causing tanks to disengage, then we should be compensated for it, because there are times when it is the strategically correct thing to do. Thoughts there? Another thing you didn't touch on was price. I think tanks were too expensive before, but now they are ridiculously Cheap. So cheap that it really isn't worth going after. The thing I think tankers forget is that I didn't start the game in an AV fit, by going after them I am no longer supporting my team, hacking points, or shooting reds which is what I WANT to be doing. I would never consider driving all the way to a supply depot to change out fits for a single proto merc on the field. Knowing that I am removing upwards of 500k average ISK was worth it. We had damage-based WP many moons ago but they were removed because of WP farming. Now, however, we have a global limiter that prevents mass-WP farming so it's definitely something I'd like to add back. If it's not possible to hot-fix in I'll poke the guys about getting in for 1.8. I think it's fair enough that you get rewarded for chasing off vehicles if not being able to outright destroy them. That said, we hot-fixed the militia fuel injector last night. And right now we're testing increased recharge times on fuel injectors and slightly reduced speed on HAVs. Any chance on buffing REs or converting the "bugged" militia injector into a micro warp drive? I tried to put a level into Amarr Commando once, but got a server notification saying "Why?"
Lurchasaurus SVER True Blood Public Disorder. 2149	Posted - 2013.12.13 07:24:00 - [49] - Quote CCP Remnant wrote: ratamaq doc wrote: Roger Cordill wrote: Message from Godin: 1: 10-15%speed or 20% acceleration nerf. 2: hardeners are fine. 2 hardener settups can't perma run it, and 3 has no repps. (Not sure if 3 can even perma run it) No, but 2 cplx hardeners leave only a 14 second engagement window. I like these ideas, the more ways to engage the better, it makes intel gathering worth it as appose to "look tank, switch to my AV Swarm fit, never heard of the guy, let's roll with a STD setup" it felt good to rebuild a flux swarm fit last night. I bought a few AUR PLCs to give them a try also. I may run out of fitting room though if we get all new grenades and equipment, I've already reached my limit. I would like to make this suggestion though. Though I do agree that I'm here to kill vehicles, not detour them. I was in a game the night before last one peaks where two tank took the high ground above C, one was a Rail, the socket was the one where the hack point was completely exposed from that vantage point. C was unhackable on our side but the team managed to deny it to the reds also. Manus peaks, 4 - 5 minutes into the game and C is still yellow 0.o. Anyway I knew I wasn't going to kill these fools alone, but I swapped to AV anyway and suppressed them for half the game. When 3-1, dealt over 50k damage, was the reason we were able to capture that point, was sitting like 12th on the leader board. It was boring as **** , but needed to be done. What would be a fair way to compensate me for that that would not be exploitable? If there is an argument to be made about infantry doing there job if they are causing tanks to disengage, then we should be compensated for it, because there are times when it is the strategically correct thing to do. Thoughts there? Another thing you didn't touch on was price. I think tanks were too expensive before, but now they are ridiculously Cheap. So cheap that it really isn't worth going after. The thing I think tankers forget is that I didn't start the game in an AV fit, by going after them I am no longer supporting my team, hacking points, or shooting reds which is what I WANT to be doing. I would never consider driving all the way to a supply depot to change out fits for a single proto merc on the field. Knowing that I am removing upwards of 500k average ISK was worth it. We had damage-based WP many moons ago but they were removed because of WP farming. Now, however, we have a global limiter that prevents mass-WP farming so it's definitely something I'd like to add back. If it's not possible to hot-fix in I'll poke the guys about getting in for 1.8. I think it's fair enough that you get rewarded for chasing off vehicles if not being able to outright destroy them. That said, we hot-fixed the militia fuel injector last night. And right now we're testing increased recharge times on fuel injectors and slightly reduced speed on HAVs. War points for infantry for doing vehicle damage and chasing them away is so necessary. It should have the same priority as fixing those militia nitros lol. Its the same as when vehicles didnt get any love when CCP bragged about infantry scanners giving points lol. The new gameplay is better but this one thing would make it SOOOO much better for everyone and would make AV gameplay properly rewarded. "He shouldve realized at that point I was lying as I'd already had my morning poo and I don't read newspapers." CB Vet
Cyrius Li-Moody The New Age Outlaws WINMATAR. 2244	Posted - 2013.12.13 07:24:00 - [50] - Quote RE buff PLEASE. There's no reason to spec beyond lvl 1 except for multiple triggers (which only one suit can do anyway). Sitting on a nanohive to restock them to get any benefit from leveling up the skill is just ridiculous for how these things need to be used for something other than trolling infantry. Youtuber. Your friendly neighborhood whiskey-fueled merc.

The Robot Devil Molon Labe. Public Disorder. 1317	Posted - 2013.12.13 07:25:00 - [51] - Quote Cosgar wrote: Any chance on buffing REs or converting the "bugged" militia injector into a micro warp drive? This, adding content is needed and we should take this bug as the blessing that is was to add things that are fun. No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride.

CCP Remnant C C P C C P Alliance 470	Posted - 2013.12.13 07:26:00 - [52] - Quote No current plans to add microwarpdrives, no .

Rei Shepard The Rainbow Effect 1313	Posted - 2013.12.13 07:31:00 - [53] - Quote CCP Remnant wrote: No current plans to add microwarpdrives, no . Could have fooled me, i thought they came standard on all the new tank hulls.... Winner of the EU Squad Cup "Go Go Power Rangers!" "Accuracy"
Kane Fyea Scions of Athra 2378	Posted - 2013.12.13 07:31:00 - [54] - Quote CCP Remnant wrote: No current plans to add microwarpdrives, no . Can you by any chance poke the devs and ask them about implementing a new range sytem for swarms. Here's a little bit of info of how I would like it to be. Or possibly just a range buff (Or make it temporary until you guys are able to implement a new range system?) Kane Fyea wrote: I personally think swarms could use a new range system. Something along the lines of the closer you are the more effective your swarms are and the farther you are the less effective you're swarms are (Kind of like the regular weapon ranges). This would allow you to not have a hard cap on range but discourage longer range combat with swarms and maybe even give a bonus to people who fight closer to combat. It could be like when you're within 25-50 meters you get a large boost to projectile speeds while when you go further out the projectile speed and damage starts decreasing. I don't know this is just something I was thinking of earlier.
Ld Collins The Phalanx Inc 94	Posted - 2013.12.13 07:33:00 - [55] - Quote Cosgar wrote: CCP Remnant wrote: ratamaq doc wrote: Roger Cordill wrote: Message from Godin: 1: 10-15%speed or 20% acceleration nerf. 2: hardeners are fine. 2 hardener settups can't perma run it, and 3 has no repps. (Not sure if 3 can even perma run it) No, but 2 cplx hardeners leave only a 14 second engagement window. I like these ideas, the more ways to engage the better, it makes intel gathering worth it as appose to "look tank, switch to my AV Swarm fit, never heard of the guy, let's roll with a STD setup" it felt good to rebuild a flux swarm fit last night. I bought a few AUR PLCs to give them a try also. I may run out of fitting room though if we get all new grenades and equipment, I've already reached my limit. I would like to make this suggestion though. Though I do agree that I'm here to kill vehicles, not detour them. I was in a game the night before last one peaks where two tank took the high ground above C, one was a Rail, the socket was the one where the hack point was completely exposed from that vantage point. C was unhackable on our side but the team managed to deny it to the reds also. Manus peaks, 4 - 5 minutes into the game and C is still yellow 0.o. Anyway I knew I wasn't going to kill these fools alone, but I swapped to AV anyway and suppressed them for half the game. When 3-1, dealt over 50k damage, was the reason we were able to capture that point, was sitting like 12th on the leader board. It was boring as **** , but needed to be done. What would be a fair way to compensate me for that that would not be exploitable? If there is an argument to be made about infantry doing there job if they are causing tanks to disengage, then we should be compensated for it, because there are times when it is the strategically correct thing to do. Thoughts there? Another thing you didn't touch on was price. I think tanks were too expensive before, but now they are ridiculously Cheap. So cheap that it really isn't worth going after. The thing I think tankers forget is that I didn't start the game in an AV fit, by going after them I am no longer supporting my team, hacking points, or shooting reds which is what I WANT to be doing. I would never consider driving all the way to a supply depot to change out fits for a single proto merc on the field. Knowing that I am removing upwards of 500k average ISK was worth it. We had damage-based WP many moons ago but they were removed because of WP farming. Now, however, we have a global limiter that prevents mass-WP farming so it's definitely something I'd like to add back. If it's not possible to hot-fix in I'll poke the guys about getting in for 1.8. I think it's fair enough that you get rewarded for chasing off vehicles if not being able to outright destroy them. That said, we hot-fixed the militia fuel injector last night. And right now we're testing increased recharge times on fuel injectors and slightly reduced speed on HAVs. Any chance on buffing REs or converting the "bugged" militia injector into a micro warp drive? I don't think REs need to be buffed 1500 damage is pretty effective. 4 RE's do 7500 damage if you add the 25% any tank caught with its hardeners down will die if you use 3 RE's which would be 5625 damage.
Spectral Clone Dust2Dust. Top Men. 876	Posted - 2013.12.13 07:38:00 - [56] - Quote CCP Remnant wrote: No current plans to add microwarpdrives, no . Just revert the militia fuel injector, add another 0 for 1000% speed boost and implement a launching ramp. This way we can fight back against EVE ships with RE rigged LAVs. Boom. Minmatar anti spaceship artillery. KDR > ALL ME > KDR ME > ALL
Bendtner92 Imperfects Negative-Feedback 1430	Posted - 2013.12.13 07:45:00 - [57] - Quote Hardeners (shield ones at least) certainly need some rework. 2-3 hardener setups are insane since you can have one up at all times, and with 3 you can even have two up a lot of the time. Either you need to be restricted to one hardener or cooldown needs to be increased more than a bit. I'm not sure I like the increased cooldown as it seriously makes the 1 hardener setups quite bad, so I'm more a fan of the restriction. Unless you tone down the resistance instead to something like 40%. I agree with a toning down of the speed. Not so much the top speed, but I feel that the acceleration of both shield and armor HAVs shoud be decreased a bit. I also feel that a slight nerf to armor reps could be in order. It shouldn't be something major but as with the shield hardeners, running 2-3 armor reps is pretty insane. Winner of the EU Squad Cup & the closed beta Tester's Tournament. Go Go Power Rangers!
wripple warravens League of Infamy 104	Posted - 2013.12.13 07:55:00 - [58] - Quote Quote: We had damage-based WP many moons ago but they were removed because of WP farming. Now, however, we have a global limiter that prevents mass-WP farming so it's definitely something I'd like to add back. If it's not possible to hot-fix in I'll poke the guys about getting in for 1.8. I think it's fair enough that you get rewarded for chasing off vehicles if not being able to outright destroy them. That said, we hot-fixed the militia fuel injector last night. And right now we're testing increased recharge times on fuel injectors and slightly reduced speed on HAVs. May I make a suggestion? -Greatly reduce the damage and RoF for all turrets by 25% and have the operation bonus increase it by 5% per level -Reduce the speed and torque for all HAVs by 50% and make HAV operation give 10% back per level. As it currently stands anyone can pick up a militia stock fit HAV and completely dominate even seasoned vets. This suggestion would grant only those who spend the SP full power of the HAV. Tanks will still have the damage and speed they do now, you just have to get level 5 in order to use it.
crazy space 1 GunFall Mobilization Covert Intervention 2074	Posted - 2013.12.13 08:26:00 - [59] - Quote CCP Remnant wrote: ratamaq doc wrote: Roger Cordill wrote: Message from Godin: 1: 10-15%speed or 20% acceleration nerf. 2: hardeners are fine. 2 hardener settups can't perma run it, and 3 has no repps. (Not sure if 3 can even perma run it) No, but 2 cplx hardeners leave only a 14 second engagement window. I like these ideas, the more ways to engage the better, it makes intel gathering worth it as appose to "look tank, switch to my AV Swarm fit, never heard of the guy, let's roll with a STD setup" it felt good to rebuild a flux swarm fit last night. I bought a few AUR PLCs to give them a try also. I may run out of fitting room though if we get all new grenades and equipment, I've already reached my limit. I would like to make this suggestion though. Though I do agree that I'm here to kill vehicles, not detour them. I was in a game the night before last one peaks where two tank took the high ground above C, one was a Rail, the socket was the one where the hack point was completely exposed from that vantage point. C was unhackable on our side but the team managed to deny it to the reds also. Manus peaks, 4 - 5 minutes into the game and C is still yellow 0.o. Anyway I knew I wasn't going to kill these fools alone, but I swapped to AV anyway and suppressed them for half the game. When 3-1, dealt over 50k damage, was the reason we were able to capture that point, was sitting like 12th on the leader board. It was boring as **** , but needed to be done. What would be a fair way to compensate me for that that would not be exploitable? If there is an argument to be made about infantry doing there job if they are causing tanks to disengage, then we should be compensated for it, because there are times when it is the strategically correct thing to do. Thoughts there? Another thing you didn't touch on was price. I think tanks were too expensive before, but now they are ridiculously Cheap. So cheap that it really isn't worth going after. The thing I think tankers forget is that I didn't start the game in an AV fit, by going after them I am no longer supporting my team, hacking points, or shooting reds which is what I WANT to be doing. I would never consider driving all the way to a supply depot to change out fits for a single proto merc on the field. Knowing that I am removing upwards of 500k average ISK was worth it. We had damage-based WP many moons ago but they were removed because of WP farming. Now, however, we have a global limiter that prevents mass-WP farming so it's definitely something I'd like to add back. If it's not possible to hot-fix in I'll poke the guys about getting in for 1.8. I think it's fair enough that you get rewarded for chasing off vehicles if not being able to outright destroy them. That said, we hot-fixed the militia fuel injector last night. And right now we're testing increased recharge times on fuel injectors and slightly reduced speed on HAVs. YES! Bring back damage based WP gain! :D
Tech Ohm Eaven L.O.T.I.S. Public Disorder. 975	Posted - 2013.12.13 08:46:00 - [60] - Quote Jason Pearson wrote: Hello. So as usual with most of my longer posts, CCP I must state this is a general discussion not feedback nor any other board you feel necessary to place it in, while I would like you to read and take interest in the following ideas, I would like to start a discussion with the community, most of which spend their time in GD rather than feedback. So onto the topic of my post, the balancing of AV and Vehicles. There's a problem and a rather large problem that presents itself currently, now before anyone QQs about me being an AV scrub crying about tanks, I am an experienced Tanker and many times I have been biased in the vehicle favour and despite loving this build (am loving it) there is a line in which must admit we're strong for what we are. In this post I suggested we look at removing the speed of the Tanks, not just their nitrous injectors, but their overall movement speed, because it's unfair to those who wait around for their hardeners to drop, timing it correctly only to have the enemy speed away. But I don't think this will be the end of balance, and I also don't think balance can be achieved with the current items in play. You see, if AVers and Tankers continue to ***** at one another and demand nerfs and buffs to their play styles, we're going to be in a never ending tug of war, personally it's not one I'm going to enjoy if we continue this, as many of you feel throughout these nerfs and buffs. Over time we've had godly tanks, then godly AV, then other random things and now we're here, Tanks are strong, AV isn't as strong but can still kill things though not very easily. Which while Tankers will claim it's only fair because teamwork makes tanks easy kills, so? Tanks using teamwork make for easy games full stop. So what we actually need is more content, rather than fight over the same things as of old, we need new ways to kill each other. We've got a great platform right now, you cannot deny these things are a lot more challenging and fun to fight, especially if you're smart, but still (most of the time) offer a way to kill them through vulnerabilities in their actives. So in list format, we need things like these: Speed Nerfs - Tanks run away too easily, it's ridiculous One Hardener on a fit - imo, though I do not speak the views of everyone, two-three hardener setups are ridiculous, and if we ever get advanced/proto tanks with these it's just going to be sad Webifiers - EVE Desc. These things would slow tanks down to a crawl, perhaps Grenade and Mine format, allow Infantry to trigger mines (or both, I'm not your mother) Webifier Counters - The ability to counter a webifier mine/grenade, by activating a module that sends out a wave removing the one that hit you, long cooldowns of course. EMP Weaponry - Weaponry that increases cooldowns, or removes the active on at the time, or just decreases the duration left on the vehicle EMP shielding - more sacrifices allowing you to be immune/less affected by EMP weapons Honestly there's a lot more we can think of if we put our heads together offering viable attacks and counters to make it fair for both parties, it increases diversity and makes the game a lot more enjoyable for all. And before people say "CCP needs to add all these graphics and effects for this to work", you don't. For webifiers, you need a funky sound effect, and maybe something showing the vehicle slowing down, but EMPs just need flux like animations. Again, this platform is wonderful, it's more interesting and more of a laugh, numbers don't mean **** in tank battles any more either, just timing and tactics. If anything else should be added for tanks, it should be more viability to assist one another through the use of modules that buff/debuff other vehicles. Thank you for reading, if you read this far, for the TL;DR just read the list and then say something about it, I'll answer you back asap, that is if anyone actually interested in reading this -¼_-¼ EDIT: IMPORTANT, NITROUS GLITCH IS FIXED. https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=128294&find=unread If the game engine supported it then all you need to balance tanks going too fast is a shovel. It worked since the dawn of tanks in real life. Abandon Ship!, Abandon Ship!! Jumps into escape pod! Selected destination Planet PS4.


CCP Remnant C C P C C P Alliance 476	Posted - 2013.12.13 08:52:00 - [61] - Quote wripple wrote: Quote: We had damage-based WP many moons ago but they were removed because of WP farming. Now, however, we have a global limiter that prevents mass-WP farming so it's definitely something I'd like to add back. If it's not possible to hot-fix in I'll poke the guys about getting in for 1.8. I think it's fair enough that you get rewarded for chasing off vehicles if not being able to outright destroy them. That said, we hot-fixed the militia fuel injector last night. And right now we're testing increased recharge times on fuel injectors and slightly reduced speed on HAVs. May I make a suggestion? -Greatly reduce the damage and RoF for all turrets by 25% and have the operation bonus increase it by 5% per level -Reduce the speed and torque for all HAVs by 50% and make HAV operation give 10% back per level. As it currently stands anyone can pick up a militia stock fit HAV and completely dominate even seasoned vets. This suggestion would grant only those who spend the SP full power of the HAV. Tanks will still have the damage and speed they do now, you just have to get level 5 in order to use it. Problem with that is that if you start new players out with the worst handling and worst performing tank possible, they'd hardly be incentivized to skill into it, and even if they were it wouldn't be terribly fun until they did, don't you think?

Omareth Nasadra Sanmatar Kelkoons Minmatar Republic 166	Posted - 2013.12.13 09:26:00 - [62] - Quote +1 to this thread, i usually avoid tank thread cuz i'm an AV and don't drive them myself and ,most of the time tanker post are biased or utter bs, i want a game where tank are good and a force multiplier, just don't want them to be omfgwtfbbq OP game changer, i really respect your opinion Jason pearson and godin too, even more now, if only we could work something out that works for this game that is based on the opinions of guys like you, i'll vouch for it, theres still hope, all tankers are not deluded Minmatar, In rust we trust!!! Omareth Nasadra/Erynyes
Jason Pearson 3330	Posted - 2013.12.13 09:43:00 - [63] - Quote wripple wrote: Quote: We had damage-based WP many moons ago but they were removed because of WP farming. Now, however, we have a global limiter that prevents mass-WP farming so it's definitely something I'd like to add back. If it's not possible to hot-fix in I'll poke the guys about getting in for 1.8. I think it's fair enough that you get rewarded for chasing off vehicles if not being able to outright destroy them. That said, we hot-fixed the militia fuel injector last night. And right now we're testing increased recharge times on fuel injectors and slightly reduced speed on HAVs. May I make a suggestion? -Greatly reduce the damage and RoF for all turrets by 25% and have the operation bonus increase it by 5% per level -Reduce the speed and torque for all HAVs by 50% and make HAV operation give 10% back per level. As it currently stands anyone can pick up a militia stock fit HAV and completely dominate even seasoned vets. This suggestion would grant only those who spend the SP full power of the HAV. Tanks will still have the damage and speed they do now, you just have to get level 5 in order to use it. Reduce Damage and RoF for all tanks so we can't kill eachother? Nice one -¼_-¼ No, am all for a reduction, not outright 50%, gotta decrease it slowly see what the best fit is, but don't give it back through skills If you're being dominated by new players as a "seasoned vet", you're definitely not a seasoned vet, when vets are breezing through new tankers, usually 2 v 1 in the newbs favour King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire Laugh at the idiots crying about four BPOs being removed erryday, lul
Korvin Lomont United Pwnage Service RISE of LEGION 336	Posted - 2013.12.13 10:03:00 - [64] - Quote Commander Tzu wrote: The main problem I have seen is lack of AV in FW and pub. I ran a ton of gallente and minmatar FW, about 15 games, and saw a whopping 4 people try to kill me with AV. Two when I was in an armor tank and two when I was in shield tanks. The first time in the armor tank I was in a madrugar with proto modules and they used standard swarms; very low threat level. The second time though, I got hit with proto swarms and dayum: about 2k damage off my 5k armor right away. Put my hardener on and got hit two more times, made it out with about 1300hp thanks to a brave building that sacrificed itself =(. With the shield tank, a different story. I saw the swarms coming this time, and hit my hardener and these proto swarms bounced off, I actually tried to run him over but he got pushed to the side of my tank and threw flux nades at me. Let me tell you, when you only have 3.3k shield hp fluxs hurt even with 60% dmg reduction. Proto av is still potent, it is just not as common. Now, maybe some things need to change but right now I think it's difficult to tell what changes are really needed, people are running around with rail rifles and combat rifles even when there are tanks right in front of them. If we had as many proto AV in matches now as we did before 1.7 none of these militia tanks would survive and then people would stop calling them in and go back to their suits, then the proto av can concentrate on the proto tanks and then we can see how this all works out. There are many reasons for this, first every one wants to try out the new stff and gets used to it, secondly currantly switching to AV is close to suicide for very little benefit. With all the new very powerfull rifles an AV guy is defenseless if you now count that the AV can at best repell a tank that he caught of food going AV is really not worth the risk anymore. Third as soon as a shield tanker is on the field there is not much AV can do about we have NO Av weapon that is more effective vs Shields that is worth to mention. In theory you can flux a tank but lets be honest this is highl+¦y sutuational. - You can't safely flux when blues are neaby in FW withou risking to get banned. - Fluxing works best to unawre tnakers - You need to get pretty close and even if you manage to get his shields damage he can mow you down and get away easily. The worst part is even if you manage to force a tank to leave the field he will be back in nearly no time and your risk was in vain and you won't get any points. With this amount of tanks AV is sadly rather pointless right now and tanks are lurking like sharks for easy infantry kills everywhere I know there are tankers that want to go after tannks but there are at least as much tankers that don't care for other tanks and just want cheap infantry kills :/ And now we have PROTO AV vs basic hulls, just imagine what wil happen once we get proto hulls...at we have to go through all this again.
Guilbert 515 United Pwnage Service RISE of LEGION 21	Posted - 2013.12.13 10:03:00 - [65] - Quote Tech Ohm Eaven wrote: Jason Pearson wrote: Hello. So as usual with most of my longer posts, CCP I must state this is a general discussion not feedback nor any other board you feel necessary to place it in, while I would like you to read and take interest in the following ideas, I would like to start a discussion with the community, most of which spend their time in GD rather than feedback. So onto the topic of my post, the balancing of AV and Vehicles. There's a problem and a rather large problem that presents itself currently, now before anyone QQs about me being an AV scrub crying about tanks, I am an experienced Tanker and many times I have been biased in the vehicle favour and despite loving this build (am loving it) there is a line in which must admit we're strong for what we are. In this post I suggested we look at removing the speed of the Tanks, not just their nitrous injectors, but their overall movement speed, because it's unfair to those who wait around for their hardeners to drop, timing it correctly only to have the enemy speed away. But I don't think this will be the end of balance, and I also don't think balance can be achieved with the current items in play. You see, if AVers and Tankers continue to ***** at one another and demand nerfs and buffs to their play styles, we're going to be in a never ending tug of war, personally it's not one I'm going to enjoy if we continue this, as many of you feel throughout these nerfs and buffs. Over time we've had godly tanks, then godly AV, then other random things and now we're here, Tanks are strong, AV isn't as strong but can still kill things though not very easily. Which while Tankers will claim it's only fair because teamwork makes tanks easy kills, so? Tanks using teamwork make for easy games full stop. So what we actually need is more content, rather than fight over the same things as of old, we need new ways to kill each other. We've got a great platform right now, you cannot deny these things are a lot more challenging and fun to fight, especially if you're smart, but still (most of the time) offer a way to kill them through vulnerabilities in their actives. So in list format, we need things like these: Speed Nerfs - Tanks run away too easily, it's ridiculous One Hardener on a fit - imo, though I do not speak the views of everyone, two-three hardener setups are ridiculous, and if we ever get advanced/proto tanks with these it's just going to be sad Webifiers - EVE Desc. These things would slow tanks down to a crawl, perhaps Grenade and Mine format, allow Infantry to trigger mines (or both, I'm not your mother) Webifier Counters - The ability to counter a webifier mine/grenade, by activating a module that sends out a wave removing the one that hit you, long cooldowns of course. EMP Weaponry - Weaponry that increases cooldowns, or removes the active on at the time, or just decreases the duration left on the vehicle EMP shielding - more sacrifices allowing you to be immune/less affected by EMP weapons Honestly there's a lot more we can think of if we put our heads together offering viable attacks and counters to make it fair for both parties, it increases diversity and makes the game a lot more enjoyable for all. And before people say "CCP needs to add all these graphics and effects for this to work", you don't. For webifiers, you need a funky sound effect, and maybe something showing the vehicle slowing down, but EMPs just need flux like animations. Again, this platform is wonderful, it's more interesting and more of a laugh, numbers don't mean **** in tank battles any more either, just timing and tactics. If anything else should be added for tanks, it should be more viability to assist one another through the use of modules that buff/debuff other vehicles. Thank you for reading, if you read this far, for the TL;DR just read the list and then say something about it, I'll answer you back asap, that is if anyone actually interested in reading this -¼_-¼ EDIT: IMPORTANT, NITROUS GLITCH IS FIXED. https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=128294&find=unread If the game engine supported it then all you need to balance tanks going too fast is a shovel. It worked since the dawn of tanks in real life. Yeah, please add shovels, so we can dig ourselfs into the ground when we see a tank coming and wait there until the match is over :) "No reason to buy any of the packs without receiving aurum and boosters alongside, especially since BPOs are taken away"
Rei Shepard The Rainbow Effect 1315	Posted - 2013.12.13 10:30:00 - [66] - Quote CCP Remnant wrote: wripple wrote: Quote: We had damage-based WP many moons ago but they were removed because of WP farming. Now, however, we have a global limiter that prevents mass-WP farming so it's definitely something I'd like to add back. If it's not possible to hot-fix in I'll poke the guys about getting in for 1.8. I think it's fair enough that you get rewarded for chasing off vehicles if not being able to outright destroy them. That said, we hot-fixed the militia fuel injector last night. And right now we're testing increased recharge times on fuel injectors and slightly reduced speed on HAVs. May I make a suggestion? -Greatly reduce the damage and RoF for all turrets by 25% and have the operation bonus increase it by 5% per level -Reduce the speed and torque for all HAVs by 50% and make HAV operation give 10% back per level. As it currently stands anyone can pick up a militia stock fit HAV and completely dominate even seasoned vets. This suggestion would grant only those who spend the SP full power of the HAV. Tanks will still have the damage and speed they do now, you just have to get level 5 in order to use it. Problem with that is that if you start new players out with the worst handling and worst performing tank possible, they'd hardly be incentivized to skill into it, and even if they were it wouldn't be terribly fun until they did, don't you think? In a racing game, don't you ussually start out with a crappy car, with crappy handling, acceleration, top speed and braking ? Don't new players start out with a crappy MLT fit that when a Proto sneezes on it dies before they can say "Dafux".. But supposedly starting tanks start at Super Speeds, Super DPS, Super Acceleration ? ...i don't really think i want to know or see what Proto Tanks are going to be like, before my second AV grenade hits a tank, its already on the other side of the map....Proto tanks are going to be able to tunnel below players as a feature ? Though through seeing pretty much 4 tanks per game on either one side and none on the other is what is the problem, if one side does not field 4 counter tanks, its already game over. Add to that artificial way of mercs to create those huge lag spikes coupled to my suit being a 2 hit for a militia blaster ...Tanks are peachy right now .... And while i get out my AV suit, it has traveled around the entire map already.... Winner of the EU Squad Cup "Go Go Power Rangers!" "Accuracy"
Jason Pearson 3331	Posted - 2013.12.13 10:45:00 - [67] - Quote Rei Shepard wrote: CCP Remnant wrote: wripple wrote: Quote: We had damage-based WP many moons ago but they were removed because of WP farming. Now, however, we have a global limiter that prevents mass-WP farming so it's definitely something I'd like to add back. If it's not possible to hot-fix in I'll poke the guys about getting in for 1.8. I think it's fair enough that you get rewarded for chasing off vehicles if not being able to outright destroy them. That said, we hot-fixed the militia fuel injector last night. And right now we're testing increased recharge times on fuel injectors and slightly reduced speed on HAVs. May I make a suggestion? -Greatly reduce the damage and RoF for all turrets by 25% and have the operation bonus increase it by 5% per level -Reduce the speed and torque for all HAVs by 50% and make HAV operation give 10% back per level. As it currently stands anyone can pick up a militia stock fit HAV and completely dominate even seasoned vets. This suggestion would grant only those who spend the SP full power of the HAV. Tanks will still have the damage and speed they do now, you just have to get level 5 in order to use it. Problem with that is that if you start new players out with the worst handling and worst performing tank possible, they'd hardly be incentivized to skill into it, and even if they were it wouldn't be terribly fun until they did, don't you think? In a racing game, don't you ussually start out with a crappy car, with crappy handling, acceleration, top speed and braking ? In a racing game you get put against the same level of competition as you, In New Eden, we don't have that comfort. King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire Laugh at the idiots crying about four BPOs being removed erryday, lul
Korvin Lomont United Pwnage Service RISE of LEGION 336	Posted - 2013.12.13 10:51:00 - [68] - Quote Jason Pearson wrote: Rei Shepard wrote: CCP Remnant wrote: wripple wrote: Quote: We had damage-based WP many moons ago but they were removed because of WP farming. Now, however, we have a global limiter that prevents mass-WP farming so it's definitely something I'd like to add back. If it's not possible to hot-fix in I'll poke the guys about getting in for 1.8. I think it's fair enough that you get rewarded for chasing off vehicles if not being able to outright destroy them. That said, we hot-fixed the militia fuel injector last night. And right now we're testing increased recharge times on fuel injectors and slightly reduced speed on HAVs. May I make a suggestion? -Greatly reduce the damage and RoF for all turrets by 25% and have the operation bonus increase it by 5% per level -Reduce the speed and torque for all HAVs by 50% and make HAV operation give 10% back per level. As it currently stands anyone can pick up a militia stock fit HAV and completely dominate even seasoned vets. This suggestion would grant only those who spend the SP full power of the HAV. Tanks will still have the damage and speed they do now, you just have to get level 5 in order to use it. Problem with that is that if you start new players out with the worst handling and worst performing tank possible, they'd hardly be incentivized to skill into it, and even if they were it wouldn't be terribly fun until they did, don't you think? In a racing game, don't you ussually start out with a crappy car, with crappy handling, acceleration, top speed and braking ? In a racing game you get put against the same level of competition as you, In New Eden, we don't have that comfort. So why do we start with crappy starter fits?
Captain Africa Clone1 GRIM MARCH D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 154	Posted - 2013.12.13 12:16:00 - [69] - Quote LoL at the speed of tanks ......no need to nerf ! I had a word with my Combat Engineer and he designed Rolled Tungsten Spike Heads. It's pretty advanced stuff , you actually have to receive training to camouflage them with lev 5 you can hardly see the spikes on any road. It doesn't stop a tank .....but the faster the tank goes over it the more effective it gets woven into the tracks slowing it down considerably. I already have my AV guys training the skill. Its a nice add on to our AV division Join the March ,see the universe , meet interesting people and kill them G£¬ http://grimmarch.wix.com/grim-march-ver1
David Spd Caldari State 115	Posted - 2013.12.13 13:16:00 - [70] - Quote CCP Remnant wrote: wripple wrote: Quote: We had damage-based WP many moons ago but they were removed because of WP farming. Now, however, we have a global limiter that prevents mass-WP farming so it's definitely something I'd like to add back. If it's not possible to hot-fix in I'll poke the guys about getting in for 1.8. I think it's fair enough that you get rewarded for chasing off vehicles if not being able to outright destroy them. That said, we hot-fixed the militia fuel injector last night. And right now we're testing increased recharge times on fuel injectors and slightly reduced speed on HAVs. May I make a suggestion? -Greatly reduce the damage and RoF for all turrets by 25% and have the operation bonus increase it by 5% per level -Reduce the speed and torque for all HAVs by 50% and make HAV operation give 10% back per level. As it currently stands anyone can pick up a militia stock fit HAV and completely dominate even seasoned vets. This suggestion would grant only those who spend the SP full power of the HAV. Tanks will still have the damage and speed they do now, you just have to get level 5 in order to use it. Problem with that is that if you start new players out with the worst handling and worst performing tank possible, they'd hardly be incentivized to skill into it, and even if they were it wouldn't be terribly fun until they did, don't you think? NOW you care about new players? Finally realized there's nothing for new people in this game, hmm? Now all you lot have to do is give dropsuits the "vehicle treatment" and give everybody a full respec and we can ALL go back to enoying a mediocre game. --> I'm a closed beta vet; I just don't post often <-- "Other people just complicate my life." ~Solid Snake

Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 1898	Posted - 2013.12.13 13:56:00 - [71] - Quote With the current levels of tank speed i do expect webifiers to be put in next to counter act it Also 1 hardener for each tank? lolno because without hardeners the tank is squishy as it is, thats the whole point of active hardeners but they come with a big consequence of PG/CPU
Aikuchi Tomaru Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 1251	Posted - 2013.12.13 14:16:00 - [72] - Quote CCP Remnant wrote: No current plans to add microwarpdrives, no . Come on now! Then at least give them real warp drives and let them fight eve players!
chase rowland The Enclave Syndicate Dark Taboo 115	Posted - 2013.12.13 14:26:00 - [73] - Quote Jason Pearson wrote: Hello. So as usual with most of my longer posts, CCP I must state this is a general discussion not feedback nor any other board you feel necessary to place it in, while I would like you to read and take interest in the following ideas, I would like to start a discussion with the community, most of which spend their time in GD rather than feedback. So onto the topic of my post, the balancing of AV and Vehicles. There's a problem and a rather large problem that presents itself currently, now before anyone QQs about me being an AV scrub crying about tanks, I am an experienced Tanker and many times I have been biased in the vehicle favour and despite loving this build (am loving it) there is a line in which must admit we're strong for what we are. In this post I suggested we look at removing the speed of the Tanks, not just their nitrous injectors, but their overall movement speed, because it's unfair to those who wait around for their hardeners to drop, timing it correctly only to have the enemy speed away. But I don't think this will be the end of balance, and I also don't think balance can be achieved with the current items in play. You see, if AVers and Tankers continue to ***** at one another and demand nerfs and buffs to their play styles, we're going to be in a never ending tug of war, personally it's not one I'm going to enjoy if we continue this, as many of you feel throughout these nerfs and buffs. Over time we've had godly tanks, then godly AV, then other random things and now we're here, Tanks are strong, AV isn't as strong but can still kill things though not very easily. Which while Tankers will claim it's only fair because teamwork makes tanks easy kills, so? Tanks using teamwork make for easy games full stop. So what we actually need is more content, rather than fight over the same things as of old, we need new ways to kill each other. We've got a great platform right now, you cannot deny these things are a lot more challenging and fun to fight, especially if you're smart, but still (most of the time) offer a way to kill them through vulnerabilities in their actives. So in list format, we need things like these: Speed Nerfs - Tanks run away too easily, it's ridiculous One Hardener on a fit - imo, though I do not speak the views of everyone, two-three hardener setups are ridiculous, and if we ever get advanced/proto tanks with these it's just going to be sad Webifiers - EVE Desc. These things would slow tanks down to a crawl, perhaps Grenade and Mine format, allow Infantry to trigger mines (or both, I'm not your mother) Webifier Counters - The ability to counter a webifier mine/grenade, by activating a module that sends out a wave removing the one that hit you, long cooldowns of course. EMP Weaponry - Weaponry that increases cooldowns, or removes the active on at the time, or just decreases the duration left on the vehicle EMP shielding - more sacrifices allowing you to be immune/less affected by EMP weapons Honestly there's a lot more we can think of if we put our heads together offering viable attacks and counters to make it fair for both parties, it increases diversity and makes the game a lot more enjoyable for all. And before people say "CCP needs to add all these graphics and effects for this to work", you don't. For webifiers, you need a funky sound effect, and maybe something showing the vehicle slowing down, but EMPs just need flux like animations. Again, this platform is wonderful, it's more interesting and more of a laugh, numbers don't mean **** in tank battles any more either, just timing and tactics. If anything else should be added for tanks, it should be more viability to assist one another through the use of modules that buff/debuff other vehicles. Thank you for reading, if you read this far, for the TL;DR just read the list and then say something about it, I'll answer you back asap, that is if anyone actually interested in reading this -¼_-¼ EDIT: IMPORTANT, NITROUS GLITCH IS FIXED. https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=128294&find=unread like the thread but I think cutting down active mods time is a bit much, maybe more cooldown? and I think tank speed is fine as long as there are webifier mines, but it needs to be visable by the tanker.
Skihids Unkn0wn Killers Renegade Alliance 2513	Posted - 2013.12.13 14:33:00 - [74] - Quote CCP Remnant wrote: wripple wrote: Quote: We had damage-based WP many moons ago but they were removed because of WP farming. Now, however, we have a global limiter that prevents mass-WP farming so it's definitely something I'd like to add back. If it's not possible to hot-fix in I'll poke the guys about getting in for 1.8. I think it's fair enough that you get rewarded for chasing off vehicles if not being able to outright destroy them. That said, we hot-fixed the militia fuel injector last night. And right now we're testing increased recharge times on fuel injectors and slightly reduced speed on HAVs. May I make a suggestion? -Greatly reduce the damage and RoF for all turrets by 25% and have the operation bonus increase it by 5% per level -Reduce the speed and torque for all HAVs by 50% and make HAV operation give 10% back per level. As it currently stands anyone can pick up a militia stock fit HAV and completely dominate even seasoned vets. This suggestion would grant only those who spend the SP full power of the HAV. Tanks will still have the damage and speed they do now, you just have to get level 5 in order to use it. Problem with that is that if you start new players out with the worst handling and worst performing tank possible, they'd hardly be incentivized to skill into it, and even if they were it wouldn't be terribly fun until they did, don't you think? That extends to AV as well. If AV doesn't have a decent ROE nobody is going to skill into it and the only proto AV we will have are the vets who already skilled into it. Chasing armor away only to have it return again, ultimately getting no rewards will quickly kill any incentive to engage vehicles. Bring back WPs for damage inflicted and you make it more enticing.
InsertCoinHere Pradox One Proficiency V. 177	Posted - 2013.12.13 14:36:00 - [75] - Quote CCP Remnant wrote: ratamaq doc wrote: Roger Cordill wrote: Message from Godin: 1: 10-15%speed or 20% acceleration nerf. 2: hardeners are fine. 2 hardener settups can't perma run it, and 3 has no repps. (Not sure if 3 can even perma run it) No, but 2 cplx hardeners leave only a 14 second engagement window. I like these ideas, the more ways to engage the better, it makes intel gathering worth it as appose to "look tank, switch to my AV Swarm fit, never heard of the guy, let's roll with a STD setup" it felt good to rebuild a flux swarm fit last night. I bought a few AUR PLCs to give them a try also. I may run out of fitting room though if we get all new grenades and equipment, I've already reached my limit. I would like to make this suggestion though. Though I do agree that I'm here to kill vehicles, not detour them. I was in a game the night before last one peaks where two tank took the high ground above C, one was a Rail, the socket was the one where the hack point was completely exposed from that vantage point. C was unhackable on our side but the team managed to deny it to the reds also. Manus peaks, 4 - 5 minutes into the game and C is still yellow 0.o. Anyway I knew I wasn't going to kill these fools alone, but I swapped to AV anyway and suppressed them for half the game. When 3-1, dealt over 50k damage, was the reason we were able to capture that point, was sitting like 12th on the leader board. It was boring as **** , but needed to be done. What would be a fair way to compensate me for that that would not be exploitable? If there is an argument to be made about infantry doing there job if they are causing tanks to disengage, then we should be compensated for it, because there are times when it is the strategically correct thing to do. Thoughts there? Another thing you didn't touch on was price. I think tanks were too expensive before, but now they are ridiculously Cheap. So cheap that it really isn't worth going after. The thing I think tankers forget is that I didn't start the game in an AV fit, by going after them I am no longer supporting my team, hacking points, or shooting reds which is what I WANT to be doing. I would never consider driving all the way to a supply depot to change out fits for a single proto merc on the field. Knowing that I am removing upwards of 500k average ISK was worth it. We had damage-based WP many moons ago but they were removed because of WP farming. Now, however, we have a global limiter that prevents mass-WP farming so it's definitely something I'd like to add back. If it's not possible to hot-fix in I'll poke the guys about getting in for 1.8. I think it's fair enough that you get rewarded for chasing off vehicles if not being able to outright destroy them. That said, we hot-fixed the militia fuel injector last night. And right now we're testing increased recharge times on fuel injectors and slightly reduced speed on HAVs. In other words in 2 days you already nerfing HAV lol funny CCP, funny Balls Deep!!!
chase rowland The Enclave Syndicate Dark Taboo 115	Posted - 2013.12.13 14:37:00 - [76] - Quote Skihids wrote: CCP Remnant wrote: wripple wrote: Quote: We had damage-based WP many moons ago but they were removed because of WP farming. Now, however, we have a global limiter that prevents mass-WP farming so it's definitely something I'd like to add back. If it's not possible to hot-fix in I'll poke the guys about getting in for 1.8. I think it's fair enough that you get rewarded for chasing off vehicles if not being able to outright destroy them. That said, we hot-fixed the militia fuel injector last night. And right now we're testing increased recharge times on fuel injectors and slightly reduced speed on HAVs. May I make a suggestion? -Greatly reduce the damage and RoF for all turrets by 25% and have the operation bonus increase it by 5% per level -Reduce the speed and torque for all HAVs by 50% and make HAV operation give 10% back per level. As it currently stands anyone can pick up a militia stock fit HAV and completely dominate even seasoned vets. This suggestion would grant only those who spend the SP full power of the HAV. Tanks will still have the damage and speed they do now, you just have to get level 5 in order to use it. Problem with that is that if you start new players out with the worst handling and worst performing tank possible, they'd hardly be incentivized to skill into it, and even if they were it wouldn't be terribly fun until they did, don't you think? That extends to AV as well. If AV doesn't have a decent ROE nobody is going to skill into it and the only proto AV we will have are the vets who already skilled into it. Chasing armor away only to have it return again, ultimately getting no rewards will quickly kill any incentive to engage vehicles. Bring back WPs for damage inflicted and you make it more enticing. but AV doesn't have the massive SP sink like tanks. just invest 300k SP, BOOM you got proto.
Commander Tzu L.O.T.I.S. Public Disorder. 72	Posted - 2013.12.13 14:41:00 - [77] - Quote Korvin Lomont wrote: Commander Tzu wrote: The main problem I have seen is lack of AV in FW and pub. I ran a ton of gallente and minmatar FW, about 15 games, and saw a whopping 4 people try to kill me with AV. Two when I was in an armor tank and two when I was in shield tanks. The first time in the armor tank I was in a madrugar with proto modules and they used standard swarms; very low threat level. The second time though, I got hit with proto swarms and dayum: about 2k damage off my 5k armor right away. Put my hardener on and got hit two more times, made it out with about 1300hp thanks to a brave building that sacrificed itself =(. With the shield tank, a different story. I saw the swarms coming this time, and hit my hardener and these proto swarms bounced off, I actually tried to run him over but he got pushed to the side of my tank and threw flux nades at me. Let me tell you, when you only have 3.3k shield hp fluxs hurt even with 60% dmg reduction. Proto av is still potent, it is just not as common. Now, maybe some things need to change but right now I think it's difficult to tell what changes are really needed, people are running around with rail rifles and combat rifles even when there are tanks right in front of them. If we had as many proto AV in matches now as we did before 1.7 none of these militia tanks would survive and then people would stop calling them in and go back to their suits, then the proto av can concentrate on the proto tanks and then we can see how this all works out. There are many reasons for this, first every one wants to try out the new stff and gets used to it, secondly currently switching to AV is close to suicide for very little benefit. With all the new very powerfull rifles an AV guy is defenseless if you now count that the AV can at best repell a tank that he caught of food going AV is really not worth the risk anymore. Third as soon as a shield tanker is on the field there is not much AV can do about we have NO Av weapon that is more effective vs Shields that is worth to mention. In theory you can flux a tank but lets be honest this is highl+¦y sutuational. - You can't safely flux when blues are neaby in FW withou risking to get banned. - Fluxing works best to unawre tnakers - You need to get pretty close and even if you manage to get his shields damage he can mow you down and get away easily. The worst part is even if you manage to force a tank to leave the field he will be back in nearly no time and your risk was in vain and you won't get any points. With this amount of tanks AV is sadly rather pointless right now and tanks are lurking like sharks for easy infantry kills everywhere I know there are tankers that want to go after tannks but there are at least as much tankers that don't care for other tanks and just want cheap infantry kills :/ And now we have PROTO AV vs basic hulls, just imagine what wil happen once we get proto hulls...at we have to go through all this again. So you complain about rifles being so powerful you can't survive, and acknowledge the fact fewer people are going into AV, partly because of it. I fail to see how either of these are the fault of tank balancing, people have been saying do something about the time to kill forever now. And with fewer people running AV, there are fewer good AV players, AV isn't easymode anymore but anyone who says it can't do it's job is a trolling scrub. I'm sympathetic to the flux grenade problem of hitting blueberries in FW, maybe they should change the flux so when it comes close to an enemy vehicle it acts like an AV nade. As far as getting mowed down, what are you doing? I have been tanking a lot since 1.7 came out and as far as I can tell blasters still don't go through walls, so you could try, I dunno, taking cover and tossing flux nades over? And what to do about shield tanks? Forge guns. They can hit a shield tank before it can put it's hardeners up, and I can tell you from first hand experience good forge gunners can take 50% or more of a Gunnlogis shield. Sure my hardener gives a 60% damage resistance but when you only have 1300 shield left that 60% starts to feel a lot smaller. Right now if I fit all proto gear on my Madrugar I fit only the low slots because complex gear takes a lot of fitting. I could add two small turrets and some hi slot modules but then I would have to add PG and CPU, to the low slot where I keep my armor. Is it possible we will have to make some changes when proto hulls arrive? Sure. But hopefully by then AVers will have read the manuals that came with their weapons.
Vitharr Foebane Blood Money Mercenaries 375	Posted - 2013.12.13 14:41:00 - [78] - Quote proto SUIT not MODULES geebus. Love the people who go straight to proto suits with no modules as even a HMG heavy can kill em and I know they can't afford to run that stuff. Edit: See above for proto weapons. they mean nothing but an isk sink if you dont have the modules to back it up TBA IS NOT A NAME! At least give the heavy laser a name so we know you MIGHT be working on it.
Commander Tzu L.O.T.I.S. Public Disorder. 72	Posted - 2013.12.13 14:43:00 - [79] - Quote AV can have webs if HAVs can get drone bays =D
Skihids Unkn0wn Killers Renegade Alliance 2514	Posted - 2013.12.13 14:44:00 - [80] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: With the current levels of tank speed i do expect webifiers to be put in next to counter act it Also 1 hardener for each tank? lolno because without hardeners the tank is squishy as it is, thats the whole point of active hardeners but they come with a big consequence of PG/CPU The issue is the balance of the "waves of opportunity" that underpins the current vehicle philosophy. As I understand it the invulnerability of the active hardener is supposed to be balanced by the time the vehicle is out of the fight and in cool down. The pilot is doing 3x the damage for 1/3 the time. If you increase the active time percentage you will throw off the balance unless you decrease the DPS done during the active phase. If a HAV is doing 4x the damage of a light weapon and is nigh invulnerable 50% of the time it is worth two sets of boots on the ground. At that point it makes sense to have more tanks than infantry. I understand the desire for more active time from a pilot's perspective, but we have to maintain an overall game balance or we will end up with TANK514.

Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 1898	Posted - 2013.12.13 14:59:00 - [81] - Quote Skihids wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: With the current levels of tank speed i do expect webifiers to be put in next to counter act it Also 1 hardener for each tank? lolno because without hardeners the tank is squishy as it is, thats the whole point of active hardeners but they come with a big consequence of PG/CPU The issue is the balance of the "waves of opportunity" that underpins the current vehicle philosophy. As I understand it the invulnerability of the active hardener is supposed to be balanced by the time the vehicle is out of the fight and in cool down. The pilot is doing 3x the damage for 1/3 the time. If you increase the active time percentage you will throw off the balance unless you decrease the DPS done during the active phase. If a HAV is doing 4x the damage of a light weapon and is nigh invulnerable 50% of the time it is worth two sets of boots on the ground. At that point it makes sense to have more tanks than infantry. I understand the desire for more active time from a pilot's perspective, but we have to maintain an overall game balance or we will end up with TANK514. So you put restrictions on tanks, what about infantry? 3dmg mods on a suit can be easily done but you dont hear about restrictions for infantry and thats double standards If i have the skills to fit the mods i should be able to do so If i want 3 hardeners on then thats my choice such as putting on 3 dmg mods on a suit With 3 hardeners i may seem invulnrable but im not, a FG will hit me hard and sometimes i wish i had a 2nd hardener to put on at that moment and i run anyways but also i sacrifice the abilty to put on a dmg mod or a booster to kick start my shield regen Once you start putting on restriction on things where does it stop? only 1 plate and repper allowed on everything now, this is supposed to be a game where you can put a sniper on a fat suit and no small turrets on your vehicles Also your wrong on the HAV, i cant enter a building or go up the stairs and hack an objective, if i play FW and 3 obj are in a compound im useless, we dont have vehicle friendly maps to begin with because infantry has places they can move from and to where a tank cannot follow
Vitharr Foebane Blood Money Mercenaries 375	Posted - 2013.12.13 15:03:00 - [82] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Skihids wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: With the current levels of tank speed i do expect webifiers to be put in next to counter act it Also 1 hardener for each tank? lolno because without hardeners the tank is squishy as it is, thats the whole point of active hardeners but they come with a big consequence of PG/CPU The issue is the balance of the "waves of opportunity" that underpins the current vehicle philosophy. As I understand it the invulnerability of the active hardener is supposed to be balanced by the time the vehicle is out of the fight and in cool down. The pilot is doing 3x the damage for 1/3 the time. If you increase the active time percentage you will throw off the balance unless you decrease the DPS done during the active phase. If a HAV is doing 4x the damage of a light weapon and is nigh invulnerable 50% of the time it is worth two sets of boots on the ground. At that point it makes sense to have more tanks than infantry. I understand the desire for more active time from a pilot's perspective, but we have to maintain an overall game balance or we will end up with TANK514. So you put restrictions on tanks, what about infantry? 3dmg mods on a suit can be easily done but you dont hear about restrictions for infantry and thats double standards If i have the skills to fit the mods i should be able to do so If i want 3 hardeners on then thats my choice such as putting on 3 dmg mods on a suit With 3 hardeners i may seem invulnrable but im not, a FG will hit me hard and sometimes i wish i had a 2nd hardener to put on at that moment and i run anyways but also i sacrifice the abilty to put on a dmg mod or a booster to kick start my shield regen Once you start putting on restriction on things where does it stop? only 1 plate and repper allowed on everything now, this is supposed to be a game where you can put a sniper on a fat suit and no small turrets on your vehicles Also your wrong on the HAV, i cant enter a building or go up the stairs and hack an objective, if i play FW and 3 obj are in a compound im useless, we dont have vehicle friendly maps to begin with because infantry has places they can move from and to where a tank cannot follow Be nice if we had heavy laser or plasma weapon so we could more easily counter shield tanks... Just this mercs opinion though TBA IS NOT A NAME! At least give the heavy laser a name so we know you MIGHT be working on it.
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 1898	Posted - 2013.12.13 15:12:00 - [83] - Quote Vitharr Foebane wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Skihids wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: With the current levels of tank speed i do expect webifiers to be put in next to counter act it Also 1 hardener for each tank? lolno because without hardeners the tank is squishy as it is, thats the whole point of active hardeners but they come with a big consequence of PG/CPU The issue is the balance of the "waves of opportunity" that underpins the current vehicle philosophy. As I understand it the invulnerability of the active hardener is supposed to be balanced by the time the vehicle is out of the fight and in cool down. The pilot is doing 3x the damage for 1/3 the time. If you increase the active time percentage you will throw off the balance unless you decrease the DPS done during the active phase. If a HAV is doing 4x the damage of a light weapon and is nigh invulnerable 50% of the time it is worth two sets of boots on the ground. At that point it makes sense to have more tanks than infantry. I understand the desire for more active time from a pilot's perspective, but we have to maintain an overall game balance or we will end up with TANK514. So you put restrictions on tanks, what about infantry? 3dmg mods on a suit can be easily done but you dont hear about restrictions for infantry and thats double standards If i have the skills to fit the mods i should be able to do so If i want 3 hardeners on then thats my choice such as putting on 3 dmg mods on a suit With 3 hardeners i may seem invulnrable but im not, a FG will hit me hard and sometimes i wish i had a 2nd hardener to put on at that moment and i run anyways but also i sacrifice the abilty to put on a dmg mod or a booster to kick start my shield regen Once you start putting on restriction on things where does it stop? only 1 plate and repper allowed on everything now, this is supposed to be a game where you can put a sniper on a fat suit and no small turrets on your vehicles Also your wrong on the HAV, i cant enter a building or go up the stairs and hack an objective, if i play FW and 3 obj are in a compound im useless, we dont have vehicle friendly maps to begin with because infantry has places they can move from and to where a tank cannot follow Be nice if we had heavy laser or plasma weapon so we could more easily counter shield tanks... Just this mercs opinion though We need several things All racial suits and weaopns and racial vehicles and there turrets After that should be plenty of options
Skihids Unkn0wn Killers Renegade Alliance 2514	Posted - 2013.12.13 15:21:00 - [84] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Skihids wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: With the current levels of tank speed i do expect webifiers to be put in next to counter act it Also 1 hardener for each tank? lolno because without hardeners the tank is squishy as it is, thats the whole point of active hardeners but they come with a big consequence of PG/CPU The issue is the balance of the "waves of opportunity" that underpins the current vehicle philosophy. As I understand it the invulnerability of the active hardener is supposed to be balanced by the time the vehicle is out of the fight and in cool down. The pilot is doing 3x the damage for 1/3 the time. If you increase the active time percentage you will throw off the balance unless you decrease the DPS done during the active phase. If a HAV is doing 4x the damage of a light weapon and is nigh invulnerable 50% of the time it is worth two sets of boots on the ground. At that point it makes sense to have more tanks than infantry. I understand the desire for more active time from a pilot's perspective, but we have to maintain an overall game balance or we will end up with TANK514. So you put restrictions on tanks, what about infantry? 3dmg mods on a suit can be easily done but you dont hear about restrictions for infantry and thats double standards If i have the skills to fit the mods i should be able to do so If i want 3 hardeners on then thats my choice such as putting on 3 dmg mods on a suit With 3 hardeners i may seem invulnrable but im not, a FG will hit me hard and sometimes i wish i had a 2nd hardener to put on at that moment and i run anyways but also i sacrifice the abilty to put on a dmg mod or a booster to kick start my shield regen Once you start putting on restriction on things where does it stop? only 1 plate and repper allowed on everything now, this is supposed to be a game where you can put a sniper on a fat suit and no small turrets on your vehicles Also your wrong on the HAV, i cant enter a building or go up the stairs and hack an objective, if i play FW and 3 obj are in a compound im useless, we dont have vehicle friendly maps to begin with because infantry has places they can move from and to where a tank cannot follow I'm not advocating specific restrictions, but rather a balance. HAVs are supposed to be "Bunker Busters" that multiply the DPS of one merc to break through a heavy defense. That multiplication must be balanced somehow or it becomes a necessity to run to not be at a disadvantage. The "Wave" philosophy uses time out of the fight as the balance factor. I am cautioning you that if you remove the balance factor you break the philosophy. Yes there are other subtle balance factors the enter the equation as well. A HAV pilot can't hack a point while in his vehicle. That just means you can't have a team of 100% pilots, it doesn't mean you can't have a team of 50% pilots. We don't have to restrict infantry modules to run the balance calculation. Simply take the average DPS by a dropsuit and use that as the base value for comparison to the HAV turret. If the STD large turret is putting out 4x the DPS of the average DPS of the STD light weapon you should start with a base 1:4 ratio of active to cooldown. I say base because you may want to tweak it based on factors like not being able to enter certain spaces.
Atom Heart Mother Nazionali Senza Filtro 75	Posted - 2013.12.13 15:23:00 - [85] - Quote My opinion, CCP you should rebuff AV as it was b4 1.7 patch, I think the game should get balanced this way.
Jason Pearson 3337	Posted - 2013.12.13 15:24:00 - [86] - Quote Atom Heart Mother wrote: My opinion, CCP you should rebuff AV as it was b4 1.7 patch, I think the game should get balanced this way. -¼_-¼ Make your own opinion thread. King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire Laugh at the idiots crying about four BPOs being removed erryday, lul
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 1898	Posted - 2013.12.13 15:38:00 - [87] - Quote Skihids wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Skihids wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: With the current levels of tank speed i do expect webifiers to be put in next to counter act it Also 1 hardener for each tank? lolno because without hardeners the tank is squishy as it is, thats the whole point of active hardeners but they come with a big consequence of PG/CPU The issue is the balance of the "waves of opportunity" that underpins the current vehicle philosophy. As I understand it the invulnerability of the active hardener is supposed to be balanced by the time the vehicle is out of the fight and in cool down. The pilot is doing 3x the damage for 1/3 the time. If you increase the active time percentage you will throw off the balance unless you decrease the DPS done during the active phase. If a HAV is doing 4x the damage of a light weapon and is nigh invulnerable 50% of the time it is worth two sets of boots on the ground. At that point it makes sense to have more tanks than infantry. I understand the desire for more active time from a pilot's perspective, but we have to maintain an overall game balance or we will end up with TANK514. So you put restrictions on tanks, what about infantry? 3dmg mods on a suit can be easily done but you dont hear about restrictions for infantry and thats double standards If i have the skills to fit the mods i should be able to do so If i want 3 hardeners on then thats my choice such as putting on 3 dmg mods on a suit With 3 hardeners i may seem invulnrable but im not, a FG will hit me hard and sometimes i wish i had a 2nd hardener to put on at that moment and i run anyways but also i sacrifice the abilty to put on a dmg mod or a booster to kick start my shield regen Once you start putting on restriction on things where does it stop? only 1 plate and repper allowed on everything now, this is supposed to be a game where you can put a sniper on a fat suit and no small turrets on your vehicles Also your wrong on the HAV, i cant enter a building or go up the stairs and hack an objective, if i play FW and 3 obj are in a compound im useless, we dont have vehicle friendly maps to begin with because infantry has places they can move from and to where a tank cannot follow I'm not advocating specific restrictions, but rather a balance. HAVs are supposed to be "Bunker Busters" that multiply the DPS of one merc to break through a heavy defense. That multiplication must be balanced somehow or it becomes a necessity to run to not be at a disadvantage. The "Wave" philosophy uses time out of the fight as the balance factor. I am cautioning you that if you remove the balance factor you break the philosophy. Yes there are other subtle balance factors the enter the equation as well. A HAV pilot can't hack a point while in his vehicle. That just means you can't have a team of 100% pilots, it doesn't mean you can't have a team of 50% pilots. We don't have to restrict infantry modules to run the balance calculation. Simply take the average DPS by a dropsuit and use that as the base value for comparison to the HAV turret. If the STD large turret is putting out 4x the DPS of the average DPS of the STD light weapon you should start with a base 1:4 ratio of active to cooldown. I say base because you may want to tweak it based on factors like not being able to enter certain spaces. The wave factor is still in In each match periodically i have to retreat or i push my tank too far and risk losing it either against AV or other tanks I cannot sit there and take a mountain of damage unless the enemy are idiots and are shooting at me with the wrong AV weapon or doing it when my hardeners are on or are just leaving me alone and firing an AR at me Yday i went 41/0 in a blaster maddy and they did have swarms and were firing at me except i had my hardeners on and they just kept coming out to get shot at, not once did anyone flank and tbh i did get pushed back a few times and we did lose the game heavily anyways because the infantry were bad on my side and didnt push the bridge even tho i kept mowing them down Even in that match i had to push when the time was right and retreat when i need to
Flix Keptick Red Star. EoN. 1577	Posted - 2013.12.13 15:50:00 - [88] - Quote CCP Remnant wrote: ratamaq doc wrote: Roger Cordill wrote: Message from Godin: 1: 10-15%speed or 20% acceleration nerf. 2: hardeners are fine. 2 hardener settups can't perma run it, and 3 has no repps. (Not sure if 3 can even perma run it) No, but 2 cplx hardeners leave only a 14 second engagement window. I like these ideas, the more ways to engage the better, it makes intel gathering worth it as appose to "look tank, switch to my AV Swarm fit, never heard of the guy, let's roll with a STD setup" it felt good to rebuild a flux swarm fit last night. I bought a few AUR PLCs to give them a try also. I may run out of fitting room though if we get all new grenades and equipment, I've already reached my limit. I would like to make this suggestion though. Though I do agree that I'm here to kill vehicles, not detour them. I was in a game the night before last one peaks where two tank took the high ground above C, one was a Rail, the socket was the one where the hack point was completely exposed from that vantage point. C was unhackable on our side but the team managed to deny it to the reds also. Manus peaks, 4 - 5 minutes into the game and C is still yellow 0.o. Anyway I knew I wasn't going to kill these fools alone, but I swapped to AV anyway and suppressed them for half the game. When 3-1, dealt over 50k damage, was the reason we were able to capture that point, was sitting like 12th on the leader board. It was boring as **** , but needed to be done. What would be a fair way to compensate me for that that would not be exploitable? If there is an argument to be made about infantry doing there job if they are causing tanks to disengage, then we should be compensated for it, because there are times when it is the strategically correct thing to do. Thoughts there? Another thing you didn't touch on was price. I think tanks were too expensive before, but now they are ridiculously Cheap. So cheap that it really isn't worth going after. The thing I think tankers forget is that I didn't start the game in an AV fit, by going after them I am no longer supporting my team, hacking points, or shooting reds which is what I WANT to be doing. I would never consider driving all the way to a supply depot to change out fits for a single proto merc on the field. Knowing that I am removing upwards of 500k average ISK was worth it. We had damage-based WP many moons ago but they were removed because of WP farming. Now, however, we have a global limiter that prevents mass-WP farming so it's definitely something I'd like to add back. If it's not possible to hot-fix in I'll poke the guys about getting in for 1.8. I think it's fair enough that you get rewarded for chasing off vehicles if not being able to outright destroy them. That said, we hot-fixed the militia fuel injector last night. And right now we're testing increased recharge times on fuel injectors and slightly reduced speed on HAVs. yes, YEEEESSSSSS!!!!! finaly a dev response that is not (insert meaningless stuff here). Wp for damage would go a long way to solve AV/V problems. If they can't destroy me than at least they get awarded for chassing me off. Oh and if you ever do, can you please just tweak speed and not absolutely nerf it into the ground until it's dead. Making AV an actual role GÿåTank DriverGÿå
Skihids Unkn0wn Killers Renegade Alliance 2516	Posted - 2013.12.13 16:42:00 - [89] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: The wave factor is still in In each match periodically i have to retreat or i push my tank too far and risk losing it either against AV or other tanks I cannot sit there and take a mountain of damage unless the enemy are idiots and are shooting at me with the wrong AV weapon or doing it when my hardeners are on or are just leaving me alone and firing an AR at me Yday i went 41/0 in a blaster maddy and they did have swarms and were firing at me except i had my hardeners on and they just kept coming out to get shot at, not once did anyone flank and tbh i did get pushed back a few times and we did lose the game heavily anyways because the infantry were bad on my side and didnt push the bridge even tho i kept mowing them down Even in that match i had to push when the time was right and retreat when i need to The question is how much time you spent in active mode on the bridge vs. time hiding, and did that balance the extra DPS you brought to bear? At 41/0 it seems that your HAV made you at least as effective as two infantry units. If your side had four HAVs it would be the equivalent of having 20 players on your side. If that becomes the norm, then each side will run as many HAVs as they can and still cap objectives. In Ambush that may mean 100% tanks.
Tech Ohm Eaven L.O.T.I.S. Public Disorder. 975	Posted - 2013.12.13 17:02:00 - [90] - Quote Guilbert 515 wrote: Tech Ohm Eaven wrote: Jason Pearson wrote: Hello. So as usual with most of my longer posts, CCP I must state this is a general discussion not feedback nor any other board you feel necessary to place it in, while I would like you to read and take interest in the following ideas, I would like to start a discussion with the community, most of which spend their time in GD rather than feedback. So onto the topic of my post, the balancing of AV and Vehicles. There's a problem and a rather large problem that presents itself currently, now before anyone QQs about me being an AV scrub crying about tanks, I am an experienced Tanker and many times I have been biased in the vehicle favour and despite loving this build (am loving it) there is a line in which must admit we're strong for what we are. In this post I suggested we look at removing the speed of the Tanks, not just their nitrous injectors, but their overall movement speed, because it's unfair to those who wait around for their hardeners to drop, timing it correctly only to have the enemy speed away. But I don't think this will be the end of balance, and I also don't think balance can be achieved with the current items in play. You see, if AVers and Tankers continue to ***** at one another and demand nerfs and buffs to their play styles, we're going to be in a never ending tug of war, personally it's not one I'm going to enjoy if we continue this, as many of you feel throughout these nerfs and buffs. Over time we've had godly tanks, then godly AV, then other random things and now we're here, Tanks are strong, AV isn't as strong but can still kill things though not very easily. Which while Tankers will claim it's only fair because teamwork makes tanks easy kills, so? Tanks using teamwork make for easy games full stop. So what we actually need is more content, rather than fight over the same things as of old, we need new ways to kill each other. We've got a great platform right now, you cannot deny these things are a lot more challenging and fun to fight, especially if you're smart, but still (most of the time) offer a way to kill them through vulnerabilities in their actives. So in list format, we need things like these: Speed Nerfs - Tanks run away too easily, it's ridiculous One Hardener on a fit - imo, though I do not speak the views of everyone, two-three hardener setups are ridiculous, and if we ever get advanced/proto tanks with these it's just going to be sad Webifiers - EVE Desc. These things would slow tanks down to a crawl, perhaps Grenade and Mine format, allow Infantry to trigger mines (or both, I'm not your mother) Webifier Counters - The ability to counter a webifier mine/grenade, by activating a module that sends out a wave removing the one that hit you, long cooldowns of course. EMP Weaponry - Weaponry that increases cooldowns, or removes the active on at the time, or just decreases the duration left on the vehicle EMP shielding - more sacrifices allowing you to be immune/less affected by EMP weapons Honestly there's a lot more we can think of if we put our heads together offering viable attacks and counters to make it fair for both parties, it increases diversity and makes the game a lot more enjoyable for all. And before people say "CCP needs to add all these graphics and effects for this to work", you don't. For webifiers, you need a funky sound effect, and maybe something showing the vehicle slowing down, but EMPs just need flux like animations. Again, this platform is wonderful, it's more interesting and more of a laugh, numbers don't mean **** in tank battles any more either, just timing and tactics. If anything else should be added for tanks, it should be more viability to assist one another through the use of modules that buff/debuff other vehicles. Thank you for reading, if you read this far, for the TL;DR just read the list and then say something about it, I'll answer you back asap, that is if anyone actually interested in reading this -¼_-¼ EDIT: IMPORTANT, NITROUS GLITCH IS FIXED. https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=128294&find=unread If the game engine supported it then all you need to balance tanks going too fast is a shovel. It worked since the dawn of tanks in real life. Yeah, please add shovels, so we can dig ourselfs into the ground when we see a tank coming and wait there until the match is over :) lol no! how did hunters lol kill mamoths?? go read dolans cadillac or watch the movie. Abandon Ship!, Abandon Ship!! Jumps into escape pod! Selected destination Planet PS4.

Baal Omniscient L.O.T.I.S. Public Disorder. 831	Posted - 2013.12.13 17:03:00 - [91] - Quote Skihids wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: The wave factor is still in In each match periodically i have to retreat or i push my tank too far and risk losing it either against AV or other tanks I cannot sit there and take a mountain of damage unless the enemy are idiots and are shooting at me with the wrong AV weapon or doing it when my hardeners are on or are just leaving me alone and firing an AR at me Yday i went 41/0 in a blaster maddy and they did have swarms and were firing at me except i had my hardeners on and they just kept coming out to get shot at, not once did anyone flank and tbh i did get pushed back a few times and we did lose the game heavily anyways because the infantry were bad on my side and didnt push the bridge even tho i kept mowing them down Even in that match i had to push when the time was right and retreat when i need to The question is how much time you spent in active mode on the bridge vs. time hiding, and did that balance the extra DPS you brought to bear? At 41/0 it seems that your HAV made you at least as effective as two infantry units. If your side had four HAVs it would be the equivalent of having 20 players on your side. If that becomes the norm, then each side will run as many HAVs as they can and still cap objectives. In Ambush that may mean 100% tanks. I'm sorry Skihids, but you're wasting your time on this one. No matter how much logic and reason you throw at him, Snake always comes back with the 5-year old stance "but they have it this way, I don't care if mine's better, I should have that too!". I WOULD recommend saving your arguments for someone who listens, but I very much enjoy watching him get trounced by game balance logic. So if you don't mind wasting your time, please carry on. It's dangerous to travel the forums alone, take this! (.:'Honeyed'Lamb**':.) FIX TTK & MINSUITS (GîÉ_GîÉ )
Rei Shepard The Rainbow Effect 1317	Posted - 2013.12.13 17:08:00 - [92] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: With the current levels of tank speed i do expect webifiers to be put in next to counter act it Also 1 hardener for each tank? lolno because without hardeners the tank is squishy as it is, thats the whole point of active hardeners but they come with a big consequence of PG/CPU Oh wow aswesome, then we would need 1 guy to web it and 3 guys to shoot it to counter 1 guy in a tank that costs roughly as much as my proto-suit..... Winner of the EU Squad Cup "Go Go Power Rangers!" "Accuracy"
Skihids Unkn0wn Killers Renegade Alliance 2525	Posted - 2013.12.13 17:53:00 - [93] - Quote I love piloting as much or more than AV so I'm not trying to nerf anything in particular. I'm looking for a fun challenge for everyone because this is a game after all. A great mindset is to imagine you get to set the rules and your opponent gets to pick which role each of you play. That's the equivalent of the "You cut, I choose" method of cutting a desert in half. Each role in the game needs to be balanced against the others. Each advantage must come with a disadvantage to balance. You might think that you want an unbalanced OP role, but in reality that would get boring fast. Some folks play to get a trophy, but most really play for the challenge and a free trophy is meaningless to them. There are no bragging rights to fishing with dynamite. Sure, watching the explosions and counting the fish is fun at first, but after a day or so the fun would pale. (Ok, not so good analogy, fishing is boring and explosions are ALWAYS fun) Let's instead take bowling. The challenge is to knock down the pins and avoid the gutters. Now we alter the balance by dropping plastic bumpers into the gutters so you can't throw a gutter ball. Every initial throw is guaranteed to knock down some pins. How much fun is that game? Are you going to go bragging about your bumper bowling score? Now to make it even easier we add a ramp you can roll your ball down for perfect aim. Once you set it to get a strike each time will you continue to play? My guess is you would get bored fast. The best game provides multiple roles, each with a unique set of challenges all balanced. Any role that has a clear advantage detracts from the whole. So the basic idea of "waves of opportunity" is a good one. A single pilot can be as effective as several but for a reciprocal amount of time. That adds variety while maintaining balance. You just have to watch that your waves don't smooth out the the point they devolve into the equivalent of passive power.
SHANN da MAN D3LTA FORC3 108	Posted - 2013.12.13 18:05:00 - [94] - Quote The problem with HAV vs. AV is that they removed PRO HAV's but didn't remove PRO AV ... The way it should work is - MLT/STD AV counters MLT/STD Vehicles - Installations ADV AV counters ADV Vehicles PRO AV counters PRO Vehicles When they removed PRO HAV's they had to rebalance AV , so that now - MLT/STD AV counters MLT/STD LAV's - Installations - Ineffective vs. HAV's ADV AV counters ADV LAV - MIL/STD HAV PRO AV counters ADV HAV Until they either add back PRO HAV's and rebalance, or remove PRO AV and rebalance, the AV vs. Vehicles will always be broken. nothing to see here ... move along
Skihids Unkn0wn Killers Renegade Alliance 2525	Posted - 2013.12.13 18:34:00 - [95] - Quote SHANN da MAN wrote: The problem with HAV vs. AV is that they removed PRO HAV's but didn't remove PRO AV ... The way it should work is - MLT/STD AV counters MLT/STD Vehicles - Installations ADV AV counters ADV Vehicles PRO AV counters PRO Vehicles When they removed PRO HAV's they had to rebalance AV , so that now - MLT/STD AV counters MLT/STD LAV's - Installations - Ineffective vs. HAV's or Dropships ADV AV counters ADV LAV - MIL/STD HAV and Dropships PRO AV counters ADV HAV and Dropships (but not very well) Until they either add back PRO HAV's and rebalance, or remove PRO AV and rebalance, the AV vs. Vehicles will always be broken. I'm not so sure they plan to add stronger vehicles. Regardless, the defensive modules are identical in strength so we have all the proto defenses to balance against. It would appear that CCP wants all vehicles to have similar defensive strengths, just varying by how long they are active. As such they can and should balance the full range of AV against the current vehicles.
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 1903	Posted - 2013.12.13 18:44:00 - [96] - Quote Skihids wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: The wave factor is still in In each match periodically i have to retreat or i push my tank too far and risk losing it either against AV or other tanks I cannot sit there and take a mountain of damage unless the enemy are idiots and are shooting at me with the wrong AV weapon or doing it when my hardeners are on or are just leaving me alone and firing an AR at me Yday i went 41/0 in a blaster maddy and they did have swarms and were firing at me except i had my hardeners on and they just kept coming out to get shot at, not once did anyone flank and tbh i did get pushed back a few times and we did lose the game heavily anyways because the infantry were bad on my side and didnt push the bridge even tho i kept mowing them down Even in that match i had to push when the time was right and retreat when i need to The question is how much time you spent in active mode on the bridge vs. time hiding, and did that balance the extra DPS you brought to bear? At 41/0 it seems that your HAV made you at least as effective as two infantry units. If your side had four HAVs it would be the equivalent of having 20 players on your side. If that becomes the norm, then each side will run as many HAVs as they can and still cap objectives. In Ambush that may mean 100% tanks. Depends 1 is like 30secs i think, maybe 40 2 is perma resist If i run 2 reps i get 350rep a sec The bridge is open for infantry and was able to mow down because they kept standing in front of me, thats not my fault Also we lost the match because no objective, doesnt matter how many tanks we have we still lost
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 1903	Posted - 2013.12.13 18:45:00 - [97] - Quote Rei Shepard wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: With the current levels of tank speed i do expect webifiers to be put in next to counter act it Also 1 hardener for each tank? lolno because without hardeners the tank is squishy as it is, thats the whole point of active hardeners but they come with a big consequence of PG/CPU Oh wow aswesome, then we would need 1 guy to web it and 3 guys to shoot it to counter 1 guy in a tank that costs roughly as much as my proto-suit..... Teamworks hurts You want to solo with an AR? How about we put restrictions on suits too so you can only have 1 dmg mod 1 rep 1 plate etc
Skihids Unkn0wn Killers Renegade Alliance 2526	Posted - 2013.12.13 18:53:00 - [98] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Rei Shepard wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: With the current levels of tank speed i do expect webifiers to be put in next to counter act it Also 1 hardener for each tank? lolno because without hardeners the tank is squishy as it is, thats the whole point of active hardeners but they come with a big consequence of PG/CPU Oh wow aswesome, then we would need 1 guy to web it and 3 guys to shoot it to counter 1 guy in a tank that costs roughly as much as my proto-suit..... Teamworks hurts You want to solo with an AR? How about we put restrictions on suits too so you can only have 1 dmg mod 1 rep 1 plate etc We have restrictions. Infantry doesn't get to be invulnerable. That's a pretty big drawback compared to vehicles.
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 1903	Posted - 2013.12.13 18:55:00 - [99] - Quote Skihids wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Rei Shepard wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: With the current levels of tank speed i do expect webifiers to be put in next to counter act it Also 1 hardener for each tank? lolno because without hardeners the tank is squishy as it is, thats the whole point of active hardeners but they come with a big consequence of PG/CPU Oh wow aswesome, then we would need 1 guy to web it and 3 guys to shoot it to counter 1 guy in a tank that costs roughly as much as my proto-suit..... Teamworks hurts You want to solo with an AR? How about we put restrictions on suits too so you can only have 1 dmg mod 1 rep 1 plate etc We have restrictions. Infantry doesn't get to be invulnerable. That's a pretty big drawback compared to vehicles. Neither do we without active hardeners
Jason Pearson 3340	Posted - 2013.12.13 19:00:00 - [100] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Skihids wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Rei Shepard wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: With the current levels of tank speed i do expect webifiers to be put in next to counter act it Also 1 hardener for each tank? lolno because without hardeners the tank is squishy as it is, thats the whole point of active hardeners but they come with a big consequence of PG/CPU Oh wow aswesome, then we would need 1 guy to web it and 3 guys to shoot it to counter 1 guy in a tank that costs roughly as much as my proto-suit..... Teamworks hurts You want to solo with an AR? How about we put restrictions on suits too so you can only have 1 dmg mod 1 rep 1 plate etc We have restrictions. Infantry doesn't get to be invulnerable. That's a pretty big drawback compared to vehicles. Neither do we without active hardeners Infantry don't get to become invulnerable for 30 seconds out in the open, we do. King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire Laugh at the idiots crying about four BPOs being removed erryday, lul

Skihids Unkn0wn Killers Renegade Alliance 2526	Posted - 2013.12.13 19:14:00 - [101] - Quote Infantry has zero access to hardener modules. With access to hardener modules comes the need for some counterbalance. There has to be some restrictions on vehicle use of hardeners since infantry gets NO use of them. That's the point of comparison, not armor plates or damage mods.
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 1903	Posted - 2013.12.13 19:17:00 - [102] - Quote Skihids wrote: Infantry has zero access to hardener modules. With access to hardener modules comes the need for some counterbalance. There has to be some restrictions on vehicle use of hardeners since infantry gets NO use of them. That's the point of comparison, not armor plates or damage mods. So you want infantry to have hardeners?
Kharga Lum Xeno Labs Security 154	Posted - 2013.12.13 19:51:00 - [103] - Quote The madrugar with proto speed booster fitted can hit 1,360 km/h. This is through the sound barrier.
Skihids Unkn0wn Killers Renegade Alliance 2526	Posted - 2013.12.13 19:52:00 - [104] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Skihids wrote: Infantry has zero access to hardener modules. With access to hardener modules comes the need for some counterbalance. There has to be some restrictions on vehicle use of hardeners since infantry gets NO use of them. That's the point of comparison, not armor plates or damage mods. So you want infantry to have hardeners? Are you being deliberately obtuse? We are speaking about balancing infantry and vehicles, therefore we have to address the differences. A major advantage vehicles possess is the use of hardeners that give them the increased ability to tank damage. That is a deliberate design decision to add diversity to the game. Give it to infantry and you thwart your effort at variety. So with great power comes the need for an equal disadvantage. That is the cool down period where a vehicle is more vulnerable. It's Superman's kryptonite. As a hero he would be very boring without his vulnerability. The comics would be dull and people would tire of reading of his pounding the bad guy if he was never in any danger of losing.
NextDark Knight Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy 111	Posted - 2013.12.13 20:13:00 - [105] - Quote So far the speed of tanks are fine, The forge damage seams to be OK but then again I'm prof 5. The ROF needs to return to Assault forge guns and so does the splash damage. I like that the tanks are the current speed, also the super fast LOL tanks where so much fun I wish we had a few more days of that non-sense. Ninja Edit : I would like to see Webs or ECM to be used on tanks. It would be nice if ECM made tanks so they couldn't tell if the enemies are red or blue. Forge Changes needed Officer Splash 3.0, Proto 2.7 Advanced 2.5 Standard 2.1.
Baal Omniscient L.O.T.I.S. Public Disorder. 831	Posted - 2013.12.13 22:27:00 - [106] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Skihids wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Rei Shepard wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: With the current levels of tank speed i do expect webifiers to be put in next to counter act it Also 1 hardener for each tank? lolno because without hardeners the tank is squishy as it is, thats the whole point of active hardeners but they come with a big consequence of PG/CPU Oh wow aswesome, then we would need 1 guy to web it and 3 guys to shoot it to counter 1 guy in a tank that costs roughly as much as my proto-suit..... Teamworks hurts You want to solo with an AR? How about we put restrictions on suits too so you can only have 1 dmg mod 1 rep 1 plate etc We have restrictions. Infantry doesn't get to be invulnerable. That's a pretty big drawback compared to vehicles. Neither do we without active hardeners OH! So you're saying AV players should get active hardners on their suits so they can tank your damage while they lay into you? And they should get speed boosters so they can chase you down on foot so you can't run away? Great idea bro... (incase that was missed, HEAVY sarcasm) It's dangerous to travel the forums alone, take this! (.:'Honeyed'Lamb**':.) FIX TTK & MINSUITS (GîÉ_GîÉ )
Baal Omniscient L.O.T.I.S. Public Disorder. 831	Posted - 2013.12.13 22:28:00 - [107] - Quote Double post, sorry: Skihids for CPM!!!!!!! Edit: Skihids wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: So you want infantry to have hardeners? Are you being deliberately obtuse? We are speaking about balancing infantry and vehicles, therefore we have to address the differences. I did warn you didn't I? Like argueing with a 5 year old. I should know, mine kid's 7 and still hasn't grown out of it. Double edit (on a double post.... hmmm who'da think it....): If you keep this shizz up Skihids, you are gonna end up farming a LOT of likes off of me. It's dangerous to travel the forums alone, take this! (.:'Honeyed'Lamb**':.) FIX TTK & MINSUITS (GîÉ_GîÉ )
Skihids Unkn0wn Killers Renegade Alliance 2535	Posted - 2013.12.14 03:51:00 - [108] - Quote Baal Omniscient wrote: Double post, sorry: Skihids for CPM!!!!!!! Edit: Skihids wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: So you want infantry to have hardeners? Are you being deliberately obtuse? We are speaking about balancing infantry and vehicles, therefore we have to address the differences. I did warn you didn't I? Like argueing with a 5 year old. I should know, my kid's 7 and still hasn't grown out of it. Double edit (on a double post.... hmmm who'da think it....): If you keep this shizz up Skihids, you are gonna end up farming a LOT of likes off of me. Yes, yes you did. But I can't help it. I really want this game to succeed and to be fun for everyone (which is pretty much the same thing). I assume that everyone is rational until liven otherwise.
Roy Ventus Foxhound Corporation General Tso's Alliance 707	Posted - 2013.12.14 04:20:00 - [109] - Quote Jason Pearson wrote: Hello. So as usual with most of my longer posts, CCP I must state this is a general discussion not feedback nor any other board you feel necessary to place it in, while I would like you to read and take interest in the following ideas, I would like to start a discussion with the community, most of which spend their time in GD rather than feedback. So onto the topic of my post, the balancing of AV and Vehicles. There's a problem and a rather large problem that presents itself currently, now before anyone QQs about me being an AV scrub crying about tanks, I am an experienced Tanker and many times I have been biased in the vehicle favour and despite loving this build (am loving it) there is a line in which must admit we're strong for what we are. In this post I suggested we look at removing the speed of the Tanks, not just their nitrous injectors, but their overall movement speed, because it's unfair to those who wait around for their hardeners to drop, timing it correctly only to have the enemy speed away. But I don't think this will be the end of balance, and I also don't think balance can be achieved with the current items in play. You see, if AVers and Tankers continue to ***** at one another and demand nerfs and buffs to their play styles, we're going to be in a never ending tug of war, personally it's not one I'm going to enjoy if we continue this, as many of you feel throughout these nerfs and buffs. Over time we've had godly tanks, then godly AV, then other random things and now we're here, Tanks are strong, AV isn't as strong but can still kill things though not very easily. Which while Tankers will claim it's only fair because teamwork makes tanks easy kills, so? Tanks using teamwork make for easy games full stop. So what we actually need is more content, rather than fight over the same things as of old, we need new ways to kill each other. We've got a great platform right now, you cannot deny these things are a lot more challenging and fun to fight, especially if you're smart, but still (most of the time) offer a way to kill them through vulnerabilities in their actives. So in list format, we need things like these: Speed Nerfs - Tanks run away too easily, it's ridiculous One Hardener on a fit - imo, though I do not speak the views of everyone, two-three hardener setups are ridiculous, and if we ever get advanced/proto tanks with these it's just going to be sad Webifiers - EVE Desc. These things would slow tanks down to a crawl, perhaps Grenade and Mine format, allow Infantry to trigger mines (or both, I'm not your mother) Webifier Counters - The ability to counter a webifier mine/grenade, by activating a module that sends out a wave removing the one that hit you, long cooldowns of course. EMP Weaponry - Weaponry that increases cooldowns, or removes the active on at the time, or just decreases the duration left on the vehicle EMP shielding - more sacrifices allowing you to be immune/less affected by EMP weapons Honestly there's a lot more we can think of if we put our heads together offering viable attacks and counters to make it fair for both parties, it increases diversity and makes the game a lot more enjoyable for all. And before people say "CCP needs to add all these graphics and effects for this to work", you don't. For webifiers, you need a funky sound effect, and maybe something showing the vehicle slowing down, but EMPs just need flux like animations. Again, this platform is wonderful, it's more interesting and more of a laugh, numbers don't mean **** in tank battles any more either, just timing and tactics. If anything else should be added for tanks, it should be more viability to assist one another through the use of modules that buff/debuff other vehicles. Thank you for reading, if you read this far, for the TL;DR just read the list and then say something about it, I'll answer you back asap, that is if anyone actually interested in reading this -¼_-¼ EDIT: IMPORTANT, NITROUS GLITCH IS FIXED. https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=128294&find=unread I highly agree! As someone who barely dabbles in AV, I'm always afraid to speak my mind about both tanks and AV because either party could shut me down with some info I might not know but your post pretty much gets to the meat without forcing some bias. I do believe tanks should be able to escape but at the same time if they should be able to really swiftly get away, so should heavies? Heavies with higher speeds than scouts...yikes. Anyways, I like that you're expanding the AV role from what we have right now. Makes skilling into AV/demolition more diverse. Would love webifier mines to come in and screw over LAVs. I'd just wait with my Swarm Launcher and Flux grenades until a LAV comes up and wreck it @_@ "There once was a time when there wasn't a Roy Ventus and it wasn't much of a time at all." Roy Ventus
MetalWolf-Cell ROGUE SPADES 4	Posted - 2013.12.14 04:54:00 - [110] - Quote Skihids wrote: Baal Omniscient wrote: Double post, sorry: Skihids for CPM!!!!!!! Edit: Skihids wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: So you want infantry to have hardeners? Are you being deliberately obtuse? We are speaking about balancing infantry and vehicles, therefore we have to address the differences. I did warn you didn't I? Like argueing with a 5 year old. I should know, my kid's 7 and still hasn't grown out of it. Double edit (on a double post.... hmmm who'da think it....): If you keep this shizz up Skihids, you are gonna end up farming a LOT of likes off of me. Yes, yes you did. But I can't help it. I really want this game to succeed and to be fun for everyone (which is pretty much the same thing). I assume that everyone is rational until liven otherwise. Hadn't posted hear yet but since after this patch, the forums are now a battleground so I want to add my 2 ISK. I like vehicles, been driving them since open beta when Black Ops tanks were like LAVs. But at any rate, vehicle drivers have to face it...These things are borderline OP. Now notice I said Borderline, My view of OP is if something cannot be killed at all, not even itself. You can still eradicate tanks, just much more difficult then 1.6. I seen my fair share of tanks this build getting destroyed by tanks and forge guns, and even AV nades. so yeah, AV may not be as useful, but still are all the same. The only problem is when there is 7 of them on the field at once. Then AV just becomes mosquitoes. I think that is one of the reasons why they are becoming OP, they are cheap and can just be fielded and if destroyed, only loses a coupled hundred thousand ISK. I mean I love tanks, But I'm discouraged to drive them sometimes because of the hate towards them now that they are buffed immensely. I feel both sides in this discussion. AV needs to be viable by being able to take pilots like me out of the picture before I wreck havoc on their squadron. Swarm Launchers should be something to look out for armor tanks, and Forge Guns should be the bane to shields, there now neither...until the hardners turn off, but even then, Tanks are much faster and can get away so that's not a problem (sometimes). REs can destroy them, but it's a huge risk. So what is the viable solution...Not to hard to figure out. But then again, HAVs should be well, HAVs. They should be hard to take down IF they have support. 1.6, I'll be the one to say they were decent. They didn't tank proto AV well, but still tanked them nontheless, And if you had support with you, well you were golden. Sure you had to worry about Forge Gunners are towers, and Swarms catching you at 400m, but that's just tactics(though annoying ones) at work. Still though, Tanks were at least somewhat viable...of course not to most pilot's standards. Yes I'll admit, I want tanks to be dominating forces if left unchecked, but not the end all be all kind of thing. I mean, me and my squad had a discussion like, what happened to spider tanking? What happened to being the gunner on tanks so it can be more domineering? What happened to relying on infantry for support on these beasts, why is so fragging cheap lol. They made tanks lonewolves now, instead of "Heavy Support." And we should be having fun Skihids said, but now AV is almost out the question and tanks are having fun being dreadnaughts. It should take multiple people to take tanks out...now before you rage, hear me out. For proto yeah, that's a given, it should at least take 1 to 2 people with proto to take a tank out with tactics. Advanced roughly the same, for miltia and standard, at least 3 to 4. In the end, we needs to figure out a balance that doesn't discourage both sides from playing, or rip each others hearts out (since discussions like these seem to end up with a divide and conquer mindset). I say cut speed by a margin so they remain fast, but not too much where they easily escape and Buff swarm launcher by a margin where they don't become too powerful but still useful, maybe 220 to 285 i don't remember the numbers. Forge guns I think are fine for now. We as a community, even CCP, took teamwork out the gameplay a little bit. We need that back especially to this AV vs Vehicle discussion.

DoomLead Dead Six Initiative Lokun Listamenn 245	Posted - 2013.12.14 07:29:00 - [111] - Quote Hardners for the heavy dropsuits only
Badonk Adonk Seituoda Taskforce Command Caldari State 75	Posted - 2013.12.14 07:40:00 - [112] - Quote Lol at all the chump like people arguing about a dead game. Lol where is your potential now?
Void Moose HYDE PARK LYNCH MOB Public Disorder. 3	Posted - 2013.12.14 11:14:00 - [113] - Quote i think that new players should have to work towards having a tank skill right now the game is beyond unbalanced to the point of losing players. however if its unavoidable that this low level bad ass tank behavior is by design and not by error can you then limit the number of tanks that can be deployed by a team to a max of two tanks and two dropships at the same time because a team of 16 versus 5 indestructible tanks is beyond broken. it has quite literally ruined my experience of the game. what you guys did with 1.7 has not made the game better. CCP Remnant wrote: wripple wrote: Quote: We had damage-based WP many moons ago but they were removed because of WP farming. Now, however, we have a global limiter that prevents mass-WP farming so it's definitely something I'd like to add back. If it's not possible to hot-fix in I'll poke the guys about getting in for 1.8. I think it's fair enough that you get rewarded for chasing off vehicles if not being able to outright destroy them. That said, we hot-fixed the militia fuel injector last night. And right now we're testing increased recharge times on fuel injectors and slightly reduced speed on HAVs. May I make a suggestion? -Greatly reduce the damage and RoF for all turrets by 25% and have the operation bonus increase it by 5% per level -Reduce the speed and torque for all HAVs by 50% and make HAV operation give 10% back per level. As it currently stands anyone can pick up a militia stock fit HAV and completely dominate even seasoned vets. This suggestion would grant only those who spend the SP full power of the HAV. Tanks will still have the damage and speed they do now, you just have to get level 5 in order to use it. Problem with that is that if you start new players out with the worst handling and worst performing tank possible, they'd hardly be incentivized to skill into it, and even if they were it wouldn't be terribly fun until they did, don't you think?
Our Deepest Regret The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 370	Posted - 2013.12.14 11:15:00 - [114] - Quote Badonk Adonk wrote: Lol at all the chump like people arguing about a dead game. Lol where is your potential now? Dead game? I played from morning until the evening. I'd still be at it if the server wasn't down.
Jason Pearson 3348	Posted - 2013.12.14 11:22:00 - [115] - Quote Void Moose wrote: i think that new players should have to work towards having a tank skill right now the game is beyond unbalanced to the point of losing players. however if its unavoidable that this low level bad ass tank behavior is by design and not by error can you then limit the number of tanks that can be deployed by a team to a max of two tanks and two dropships at the same time because a team of 16 versus 5 indestructible tanks is beyond broken. it has quite literally ruined my experience of the game. What about your thoughts on the OP? That was the topic of this thread for discussion, numerous viable ways of balancing without doing something crazy like reducing tank numbers (because you'll always have some guy call in a militia tank and do nothing useful) despite the fact one tank can kill 5 easily. They're not indestructible, they're harder to kill for a period of time which is great, but the cooldowns mean you can decimate a tank with two forge shots, two AV grenades took off a massive amount of HP when my shield hardeners go down, it hurts. The problem with the entire thing, I feel I offered several viable solutions to it. King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire Laugh at the idiots crying about four BPOs being removed erryday, lul
Alena Ventrallis Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 283	Posted - 2013.12.14 11:26:00 - [116] - Quote CCP Remnant wrote: ratamaq doc wrote: Roger Cordill wrote: Message from Godin: 1: 10-15%speed or 20% acceleration nerf. 2: hardeners are fine. 2 hardener settups can't perma run it, and 3 has no repps. (Not sure if 3 can even perma run it) No, but 2 cplx hardeners leave only a 14 second engagement window. I like these ideas, the more ways to engage the better, it makes intel gathering worth it as appose to "look tank, switch to my AV Swarm fit, never heard of the guy, let's roll with a STD setup" it felt good to rebuild a flux swarm fit last night. I bought a few AUR PLCs to give them a try also. I may run out of fitting room though if we get all new grenades and equipment, I've already reached my limit. I would like to make this suggestion though. Though I do agree that I'm here to kill vehicles, not detour them. I was in a game the night before last one peaks where two tank took the high ground above C, one was a Rail, the socket was the one where the hack point was completely exposed from that vantage point. C was unhackable on our side but the team managed to deny it to the reds also. Manus peaks, 4 - 5 minutes into the game and C is still yellow 0.o. Anyway I knew I wasn't going to kill these fools alone, but I swapped to AV anyway and suppressed them for half the game. When 3-1, dealt over 50k damage, was the reason we were able to capture that point, was sitting like 12th on the leader board. It was boring as **** , but needed to be done. What would be a fair way to compensate me for that that would not be exploitable? If there is an argument to be made about infantry doing there job if they are causing tanks to disengage, then we should be compensated for it, because there are times when it is the strategically correct thing to do. Thoughts there? Another thing you didn't touch on was price. I think tanks were too expensive before, but now they are ridiculously Cheap. So cheap that it really isn't worth going after. The thing I think tankers forget is that I didn't start the game in an AV fit, by going after them I am no longer supporting my team, hacking points, or shooting reds which is what I WANT to be doing. I would never consider driving all the way to a supply depot to change out fits for a single proto merc on the field. Knowing that I am removing upwards of 500k average ISK was worth it. We had damage-based WP many moons ago but they were removed because of WP farming. Now, however, we have a global limiter that prevents mass-WP farming so it's definitely something I'd like to add back. If it's not possible to hot-fix in I'll poke the guys about getting in for 1.8. I think it's fair enough that you get rewarded for chasing off vehicles if not being able to outright destroy them. That said, we hot-fixed the militia fuel injector last night. And right now we're testing increased recharge times on fuel injectors and slightly reduced speed on HAVs. Woo!
DAMIOS82 ACME SPECIAL FORCES 69	Posted - 2013.12.14 12:09:00 - [117] - Quote like i said in another post Its not that tanks are OP or AV have become to weak now. Its what we have for equipment and the weapons we have available atm. now it all seems constantly unbalanced. But CCP needs to start introducing other means of warfare, more weapons and vehicles that give more means to kill HAV and in its turn give HAV the right modules to counter them. Instead of whining about it all, we should come up with ways to expand our playing field and choice in means to kill. If CCP is constantly trying to fix the current AV and HAV problem, there leaving out time that they could be spending on giving us more ways to kill HAV's and HAV's more ways to kill infantry and other vehicles. I for one do not wish to be stuck on just forge guns and swarmers for the next year or Maddy's/Gunloggi's, I want mines and booby traps for those vehicles, i want the abbility to call in installations/ road blocks for traps or a MTAC to help me counter the infantry, i want to have an ANTI-Tank tank or atleast see such variety's in weapons and vehicles, that there won't really be a flavor of the month, since we all have to much to choose from, all just as effective and each with there own role and purpose. Things that will help me be a better killer and increase my survival odds in all categories. This is what next year should be about and not the constant of this is not right, because its not a one hit wonder. We should help CCP make this the game we all want it to be.
Paran Tadec Imperfect Bastards 1742	Posted - 2013.12.14 14:37:00 - [118] - Quote CCP Remnant wrote: wripple wrote: Quote: We had damage-based WP many moons ago but they were removed because of WP farming. Now, however, we have a global limiter that prevents mass-WP farming so it's definitely something I'd like to add back. If it's not possible to hot-fix in I'll poke the guys about getting in for 1.8. I think it's fair enough that you get rewarded for chasing off vehicles if not being able to outright destroy them. That said, we hot-fixed the militia fuel injector last night. And right now we're testing increased recharge times on fuel injectors and slightly reduced speed on HAVs. May I make a suggestion? -Greatly reduce the damage and RoF for all turrets by 25% and have the operation bonus increase it by 5% per level -Reduce the speed and torque for all HAVs by 50% and make HAV operation give 10% back per level. As it currently stands anyone can pick up a militia stock fit HAV and completely dominate even seasoned vets. This suggestion would grant only those who spend the SP full power of the HAV. Tanks will still have the damage and speed they do now, you just have to get level 5 in order to use it. Problem with that is that if you start new players out with the worst handling and worst performing tank possible, they'd hardly be incentivized to skill into it, and even if they were it wouldn't be terribly fun until they did, don't you think? So i can get my militia rail rifle with prof V built in? Bittervet Proficiency V thanks logibro!
Hobo on Fire Goonfeet Top Men. 90	Posted - 2013.12.14 15:21:00 - [119] - Quote MetalWolf-Cell wrote: ...My view of OP is if something cannot be killed at all, not even itself. You can still eradicate tanks, just much more difficult then 1.6. I seen my fair share of tanks this build getting destroyed by tanks and forge guns, and even AV nades. so yeah, AV may not be as useful, but still are all the same. The only problem is when there is 7 of them on the field at once. Then AV just becomes mosquitoes. I think that is one of the reasons why they are becoming OP, they are cheap and can just be fielded and if destroyed, only loses a coupled hundred thousand ISK.... I think this point is being a bit overlooked. I consider myself an AV player, and I don't really think 1.7's tanks are OP individually. The problem is we're getting too many on the field at once. As it stands, it takes multiple AV infantry to counter a tank, but the tank itself costs the price of a single decent AV fitting. If it takes 3 infantry wearing 75,000 isk dropsuits to counter a single 100,000 isk HAV, the balance is off. I think a simple isk cost increase to the hulls would actually go a long way toward balancing gameplay. It doesn't need to be drastic, the 1.6 and earlier prices were far too high for what the tankers were getting out of them. A 50% increase to hulls wouldn't break a pilots bank account; you'd still be buying Gunnlogis and Madrugers for 150k, and I'm not suggesting a price increase to weapons or modules. Just enough to make it impractical for a single player to bring in 3 or 4 tanks in a pub match. You can bring them to FW and PC all day for all I care. I'm simply suggesting that a tank should cost as much as whatever it takes to counter it, be that another tank or a few AV fittings.
Scheneighnay McBob Bojo's School of the Trades 3270	Posted - 2013.12.14 15:29:00 - [120] - Quote Support. Also, I tried to go HAV hunting in my python; it's fit with a proto rail. Nobody went anywhere. I couldn't keep up enough damage to take down any HAVs, and HAVs didn't have the amount of alpha damage needed to down my dropship. My passive shield regen is so high that my shields are almost completely back up by the time I get out of range. And my afterburners get me out of range VERY quickly. We used to have a time machine

medomai grey warravens League of Infamy 380	Posted - 2013.12.14 23:49:00 - [121] - Quote wripple wrote: May I make a suggestion? -Greatly reduce the damage and RoF for all turrets by 25% and have the operation bonus increase it by 5% per level -Reduce the speed and torque for all HAVs by 50% and make HAV operation give 10% back per level. As it currently stands anyone can pick up a militia stock fit HAV and completely dominate even seasoned vets. This suggestion would grant only those who spend the SP full power of the HAV. Tanks will still have the damage and speed they do now, you just have to get level 5 in order to use it. I disagree with your suggestion. Tank versus tank is in a good place at the moment. One of the actual problems pre 1.7, that tanker "vet"s never brought up, was the inability of lower tier tanks to compete with higher tier tanks. I fear that your suggestion would cause a repeat of that imbalance. Tanks across the board do need a decrease in torque. But it should not be implemented in such a way that gives someone who's skilled into it an overwhelming advantage. Blatant Dust_514 recruiting in the silliest of places. :P
Jason Pearson 3394	Posted - 2013.12.15 03:33:00 - [122] - Quote Keeping this bumped because of all the crying. King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire. Buffing or Debuffing Vehicles or AV will never fix anything.
Jason Pearson 3447	Posted - 2013.12.15 23:33:00 - [123] - Quote Jason Pearson wrote: Keeping this bumped because of all the crying. King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire. Buffing or Debuffing Vehicles or AV will never fix anything.
Darken-Sol BIG BAD W0LVES 825	Posted - 2013.12.15 23:49:00 - [124] - Quote I hear alot of crying about tanks. Boo hoo. I personally feel they pushed the AV Nerf a tad to far. Having said that its always been a blast poppin tanks. Now more than ever. I get to take my guys out and teach them how to wreck stuff. I'm pullin some of our best guys off the frontline to crush tanks. I've had to resort to using rooftops lately, 3MLT tanks can do a number on a guy.it doesn't feel cheap to be up there anymore. It feels like hunting sharks......with a bazooka. tanking is a hell of alot of fun right now too. you can tell a good pilot from a bad one, bad ones explode more often.
Jason Pearson 3452	Posted - 2013.12.16 00:35:00 - [125] - Quote Darken-Sol wrote: I hear alot of crying about tanks. Boo hoo. I personally feel they pushed the AV Nerf a tad to far. Having said that its always been a blast poppin tanks. Now more than ever. I get to take my guys out and teach them how to wreck stuff. I'm pullin some of our best guys off the frontline to crush tanks. I've had to resort to using rooftops lately, 3MLT tanks can do a number on a guy.it doesn't feel cheap to be up there anymore. It feels like hunting sharks......with a bazooka. tanking is a hell of alot of fun right now too. you can tell a good pilot from a bad one, bad ones explode more often. People keep saying it's less skill when driving a tank, this update completely separates the good from the bad, and the great from the good it's wonderful. King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire. Buffing or Debuffing Vehicles or AV will never fix anything.
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 8081	Posted - 2014.01.15 18:38:00 - [126] - Quote CCP Remnant wrote: ratamaq doc wrote: Roger Cordill wrote: Message from Godin: 1: 10-15%speed or 20% acceleration nerf. 2: hardeners are fine. 2 hardener settups can't perma run it, and 3 has no repps. (Not sure if 3 can even perma run it) No, but 2 cplx hardeners leave only a 14 second engagement window. I like these ideas, the more ways to engage the better, it makes intel gathering worth it as appose to "look tank, switch to my AV Swarm fit, never heard of the guy, let's roll with a STD setup" it felt good to rebuild a flux swarm fit last night. I bought a few AUR PLCs to give them a try also. I may run out of fitting room though if we get all new grenades and equipment, I've already reached my limit. I would like to make this suggestion though. Though I do agree that I'm here to kill vehicles, not detour them. I was in a game the night before last one peaks where two tank took the high ground above C, one was a Rail, the socket was the one where the hack point was completely exposed from that vantage point. C was unhackable on our side but the team managed to deny it to the reds also. Manus peaks, 4 - 5 minutes into the game and C is still yellow 0.o. Anyway I knew I wasn't going to kill these fools alone, but I swapped to AV anyway and suppressed them for half the game. When 3-1, dealt over 50k damage, was the reason we were able to capture that point, was sitting like 12th on the leader board. It was boring as ** , but needed to be done. What would be a fair way to compensate me for that that would not be exploitable? If there is an argument to be made about infantry doing there job if they are causing tanks to disengage, then we should be compensated for it, because there are times when it is the strategically correct thing to do. Thoughts there? Another thing you didn't touch on was price. I think tanks were too expensive before, but now they are ridiculously Cheap. So cheap that it really isn't worth going after. The thing I think tankers forget is that I didn't start the game in an AV fit, by going after them I am no longer supporting my team, hacking points, or shooting reds which is what I WANT to be doing. I would never consider driving all the way to a supply depot to change out fits for a single proto merc on the field. Knowing that I am removing upwards of 500k average ISK was worth it. We had damage-based WP many moons ago but they were removed because of WP farming. Now, however, we have a global limiter that prevents mass-WP farming so it's definitely something I'd like to add back. If it's not possible to hot-fix in I'll poke the guys about getting in for 1.8. I think it's fair enough that you get rewarded for chasing off vehicles if not being able to outright destroy them. That said, we hot-fixed the militia fuel injector last night. And right now we're testing increased recharge times on fuel injectors and slightly reduced speed on HAVs. Guessing its not something that can be hotfixed since it hasn't happened by now. Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum alt** Gû¦Gû+
Bones McGavins TacoCat Industries 408	Posted - 2014.01.15 18:49:00 - [127] - Quote I would like more "weak spots" on a tank. Maybe they are there, and i do not know of them. But I wouldnt mind a 50% spot on the sides in addition to the current rear and underbelly spots. Also to the folks who say less roads more hills... Hills can be just as good cover for tanks. Tank falls back over a hill or two and suddenly my slow ass heavy has no way to get LOS on them. Tanks on roads are usually far more vunerable than in the hills.
The Attorney General 1747	Posted - 2014.01.15 18:50:00 - [128] - Quote Jason Pearson wrote: People keep saying it's less skill when driving a tank, this update completely separates the good from the bad, and the great from the good it's wonderful. Oh please. It takes almost no skill to sit back with a triple damage modded rail tank. Especially if you run a hardener and a plate and recall after taking a hit or burning through your modules. Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
Jason Pearson 3916	Posted - 2014.01.16 00:37:00 - [129] - Quote The Attorney General wrote: Jason Pearson wrote: People keep saying it's less skill when driving a tank, this update completely separates the good from the bad, and the great from the good it's wonderful. Oh please. It takes almost no skill to sit back with a triple damage modded rail tank. Especially if you run a hardener and a plate and recall after taking a hit or burning through your modules. Oh, sorry, I meant people who aren't fucktards and don't run broken fits like triple hardener/damage mods :) King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire \\ Bad Mathematician You're a total git, Jason. - Kingbabar


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.