DUST Search - tanks aren't op

All Channels

General Discussions

tanks aren't op

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
TheBLAZZED VENGEANCE FOR HIRE 123	Posted - 2013.12.14 07:45:00 - [1] - Quote early chromosomes I had matches where I would easily kill 50 in ambush but one proto fg would kill me. Now, 20 kills is a great game. I just think everybody got used to paper thin they were in 1.6.-á I do way less damage than I did a week ago. Here are the issues I do see currently Damage threshold for sheild tanks don't account for hardeners. They keep repping while under fire.(swarms and large blaster) Milita tanks plagued the battle feild due to their high effectiveness and low investment. vehicle quotas count as a total number of vehicles. It should be breakdown of each vehicle. Ie: 4tanks, 4 lavs , 4 ds instead of 12 vehicles (just an example. Not numbers I'm suggesting) Av has no incentive to chase tanks off. Armor is fast but it turns like a 747... maybe a extended cool down on fuel injectors would help. Sorry for another tank thread but I've been tanking a LONG time and wanted to share my thoughts. Ty
Cosgar ParagonX 8668	Posted - 2013.12.14 07:52:00 - [2] - Quote I agree, tanks aren't OP. They're more accessible. No more SP > skill disparity to keep tanking a niche specialty anymore. You can do work with a soma or sica and get enough out of the experience to see if you want to actually invest SP. This pisses off neckbeard tankers and it pisses off AV spoiled by the crippled tanks we saw in early Uprising. Props to Wolfman for angering two communities while making a niche role viable and fun. I tried to put a level into Amarr Commando once, but got a server notification saying "Why?"
Text Grant Death Firm. Canis Eliminatus Operatives 260	Posted - 2013.12.14 07:52:00 - [3] - Quote If tanks arn't OP then AV is UP. Five AVers can't kill a single tank with no gunners while his actives are up. Don't see the problem? Tanks are too fast to chase down, too deadly to engage directly, and too hard to engage during opportunistic times. The only way the current numbers will work is if AV is made into sidearms or equipment. Which is why I now use RE's on annoying tanks and crash an LAV into them. You asked for this.
Doc Noah Algintal Core Gallente Federation 993	Posted - 2013.12.14 07:53:00 - [4] - Quote In order to reliably kill a MILITIA TANK, it requires at least PROTO AV. Even if you have PROTO AV, you need at least TWO people to take it out before it dashes off to neverland even when it's vulnerable. Otherwise the only way you'll ever take out a tank is if the driver is dumb as a sack of **** or chose to stand perfectly still to advocate world peace.
Text Grant Death Firm. Canis Eliminatus Operatives 260	Posted - 2013.12.14 07:54:00 - [5] - Quote Cosgar wrote: I agree, tanks aren't OP. They're more accessible. No more SP > skill disparity to keep tanking a niche specialty anymore. You can do work with a soma or sica and get enough out of the experience to see if you want to actually invest SP. This pisses off neckbeard tankers and it pisses off AV spoiled by the crippled tanks we saw in early Uprising. Props to Wolfman for angering two communities while making a niche role viable and fun. Wow cosgar. I used to like you. You cant honestly think tanks arn't broken
Cosgar ParagonX 8668	Posted - 2013.12.14 07:54:00 - [6] - Quote Text Grant wrote: If tanks arn't OP then AV is UP. Five AVers can't kill a single tank with no gunnerswhile his actives are up. Don't see the problem? Tanks are too fast to chase down, too deadly to engage directly, and too hard to engage during opportunistic times. The only way the current numbers will work is if AV is made into sidearms or equipment. Which is why I now use RE's on annoying tanks and crash an LAV into them. You asked for this. There's your problem right there. Glowy tank = Bad, not glowy tank = good. I tried to put a level into Amarr Commando once, but got a server notification saying "Why?"
Oswald Rehnquist 875	Posted - 2013.12.14 07:55:00 - [7] - Quote Cosgar wrote: I agree, tanks aren't OP. They're more accessible. No more SP > skill disparity to keep tanking a niche specialty anymore. You can do work with a soma or sica and get enough out of the experience to see if you want to actually invest SP. This pisses off neckbeard tankers and it pisses off AV spoiled by the crippled tanks we saw in early Uprising. Props to Wolfman for angering two communities while making a niche role viable and fun. I actually sympathize with the nechbead tankers because they were the bottom of the food chain to now being mocked as cheap tactics, and 0 mill tankers are just as effective as 10 mill tankers, which I see as disheartening for those players who's investment has just been trivialized. Below 28 dB
TheBLAZZED VENGEANCE FOR HIRE 124	Posted - 2013.12.14 07:55:00 - [8] - Quote Cosgar wrote: Text Grant wrote: If tanks arn't OP then AV is UP. Five AVers can't kill a single tank with no gunnerswhile his actives are up. Don't see the problem? Tanks are too fast to chase down, too deadly to engage directly, and too hard to engage during opportunistic times. The only way the current numbers will work is if AV is made into sidearms or equipment. Which is why I now use RE's on annoying tanks and crash an LAV into them. You asked for this. There's your problem right there. Glowy tank = Bad, not glowy tank = good. Lamo! You sir, have a way with words.
Text Grant Death Firm. Canis Eliminatus Operatives 260	Posted - 2013.12.14 07:58:00 - [9] - Quote Cosgar wrote: Text Grant wrote: If tanks arn't OP then AV is UP. Five AVers can't kill a single tank with no gunnerswhile his actives are up. Don't see the problem? Tanks are too fast to chase down, too deadly to engage directly, and too hard to engage during opportunistic times. The only way the current numbers will work is if AV is made into sidearms or equipment. Which is why I now use RE's on annoying tanks and crash an LAV into them. You asked for this. There's your problem right there. Glowy tank = Bad, not glowy tank = good. I can underline too.
Cosgar ParagonX 8671	Posted - 2013.12.14 07:59:00 - [10] - Quote Text Grant wrote: Cosgar wrote: I agree, tanks aren't OP. They're more accessible. No more SP > skill disparity to keep tanking a niche specialty anymore. You can do work with a soma or sica and get enough out of the experience to see if you want to actually invest SP. This pisses off neckbeard tankers and it pisses off AV spoiled by the crippled tanks we saw in early Uprising. Props to Wolfman for angering two communities while making a niche role viable and fun. Wow cosgar. I used to like you. You cant honestly think tanks arn't broken Never said it was perfect. AV needs to get WP for damaging vehicles again, rendering needs to improve so swarms can have a slightly longer range, proximity mines and REs need their damage to scale up and/or increase amount carried across the tiers, there needs to be more AV that's effective against shields, while tackling and EWAR needs to be a thing for both vehicles vs vehicle and infantry vs vehicle. It's a step in the right direction, but there's more room for improvement. I tried to put a level into Amarr Commando once, but got a server notification saying "Why?"

Awry Barux Paladin Survey Force Amarr Empire 393	Posted - 2013.12.14 08:03:00 - [11] - Quote Cosgar wrote: Text Grant wrote: If tanks arn't OP then AV is UP. Five AVers can't kill a single tank with no gunnerswhile his actives are up. Don't see the problem? Tanks are too fast to chase down, too deadly to engage directly, and too hard to engage during opportunistic times. The only way the current numbers will work is if AV is made into sidearms or equipment. Which is why I now use RE's on annoying tanks and crash an LAV into them. You asked for this. There's your problem right there. Glowy tank = Bad, not glowy tank = good. ROFL. Any half decent tanker = call in tank -> use 50+ seconds of invuln (2x cycled hardeners on a Sica) -> retreat -> call in new HAV -> recall old one -> repeat Not very hard to do. If you want to be conservative, just retreat with 20 seconds left on the second hardener, and you'll reach a safe zone with ease. If I, someone with no tank experience, can do this with militia tanks, I can only imagine that it's far easier for real tankers with their increased module duration and additional slot.
Cosgar ParagonX 8671	Posted - 2013.12.14 08:04:00 - [12] - Quote Oswald Rehnquist wrote: Cosgar wrote: I agree, tanks aren't OP. They're more accessible. No more SP > skill disparity to keep tanking a niche specialty anymore. You can do work with a soma or sica and get enough out of the experience to see if you want to actually invest SP. This pisses off neckbeard tankers and it pisses off AV spoiled by the crippled tanks we saw in early Uprising. Props to Wolfman for angering two communities while making a niche role viable and fun. I actually sympathize with the nechbead tankers because they were the bottom of the food chain to now being mocked as cheap tactics, and 0 mill tankers are just as effective as 10 mill tankers, which I see as disheartening for those players who's investment has just been trivialized. People didn't like the idea of SP > skill for infantry. Why should it be the same for vehicles. The fact that it takes more skill than who has the best fit is worlds better. I just saw two soma pull a pincer on a gunlogi tonight. Probably one of the most epic things I've seen thus far. Infantry combat needs to be this fun. I tried to put a level into Amarr Commando once, but got a server notification saying "Why?"
TheBLAZZED VENGEANCE FOR HIRE 124	Posted - 2013.12.14 08:04:00 - [13] - Quote The point I was trying to make is: there's a difference between overpowered and hard to kill. back in the day when I only had to shoot in the general direction of enemies and watch the war points roll in... that was overpowered
Text Grant Death Firm. Canis Eliminatus Operatives 260	Posted - 2013.12.14 08:05:00 - [14] - Quote Cosgar wrote: Text Grant wrote: Cosgar wrote: I agree, tanks aren't OP. They're more accessible. No more SP > skill disparity to keep tanking a niche specialty anymore. You can do work with a soma or sica and get enough out of the experience to see if you want to actually invest SP. This pisses off neckbeard tankers and it pisses off AV spoiled by the crippled tanks we saw in early Uprising. Props to Wolfman for angering two communities while making a niche role viable and fun. Wow cosgar. I used to like you. You cant honestly think tanks arn't broken Never said it was perfect. AV needs to get WP for damaging vehicles again, rendering needs to improve so swarms can have a slightly longer range, proximity mines and REs need their damage to scale up and/or increase amount carried across the tiers, there needs to be more AV that's effective against shields, while tackling and EWAR needs to be a thing for both vehicles vs vehicle and infantry vs vehicle. It's a step in the right direction, but there's more room for improvement. Proxies and RE's are the only things that work so making them better would make me happy. But swarms are currently pointless and it wouldn't make a difference if you could hit from 1000 meters as the damage taken by the tank would annoy the driver at best.
Luna Angelo We Who Walk Alone 414	Posted - 2013.12.14 08:06:00 - [15] - Quote Not to mention the speed thing is a bug.... Names of playstyles
Text Grant Death Firm. Canis Eliminatus Operatives 260	Posted - 2013.12.14 08:06:00 - [16] - Quote TheBLAZZED wrote: The point I was trying to make is: there's a difference between overpowered and hard to kill. back in the day when I only had to shoot in the general direction of enemies and watch the war points roll in... that was overpowered And now you have to sit still and aim to kill then when your actives wear off you fly away.
TheBLAZZED VENGEANCE FOR HIRE 124	Posted - 2013.12.14 08:08:00 - [17] - Quote Luna Angelo wrote: Not to mention the speed thing is a bug.... They fixed the militia injectors... I still think they need more work. Mainly a longer cool down
Cosgar ParagonX 8672	Posted - 2013.12.14 08:09:00 - [18] - Quote Awry Barux wrote: Cosgar wrote: Text Grant wrote: If tanks arn't OP then AV is UP. Five AVers can't kill a single tank with no gunnerswhile his actives are up. Don't see the problem? Tanks are too fast to chase down, too deadly to engage directly, and too hard to engage during opportunistic times. The only way the current numbers will work is if AV is made into sidearms or equipment. Which is why I now use RE's on annoying tanks and crash an LAV into them. You asked for this. There's your problem right there. Glowy tank = Bad, not glowy tank = good. ROFL. Any half decent tanker = call in tank -> use 50+ seconds of invuln (2x cycled hardeners on a Sica) -> retreat -> call in new HAV -> recall old one -> repeat Not very hard to do. If you want to be conservative, just retreat with 20 seconds left on the second hardener, and you'll reach a safe zone with ease. If I, someone with no tank experience, can do this with militia tanks, I can only imagine that it's far easier for real tankers with their increased module duration and additional slot. Then do it. Nobody said this was supposed to be a F2P CoD. Throw some SP into tanking and have some damn fun with it. There's nothing stopping anyone from specializing in vehicles aside from their own arrogance. That's the beauty of it. I tried to put a level into Amarr Commando once, but got a server notification saying "Why?"
Luna Angelo We Who Walk Alone 414	Posted - 2013.12.14 08:10:00 - [19] - Quote TheBLAZZED wrote: Luna Angelo wrote: Not to mention the speed thing is a bug.... They fixed the militia injectors... I still think they need more work. Mainly a longer cool down I still see them JUMPING. WTF? If that was fixed... nothing with 2 tons of armour should be able to JUMP. Names of playstyles
Awry Barux Paladin Survey Force Amarr Empire 393	Posted - 2013.12.14 08:17:00 - [20] - Quote Cosgar wrote: Awry Barux wrote: Cosgar wrote: Text Grant wrote: If tanks arn't OP then AV is UP. Five AVers can't kill a single tank with no gunnerswhile his actives are up. Don't see the problem? Tanks are too fast to chase down, too deadly to engage directly, and too hard to engage during opportunistic times. The only way the current numbers will work is if AV is made into sidearms or equipment. Which is why I now use RE's on annoying tanks and crash an LAV into them. You asked for this. There's your problem right there. Glowy tank = Bad, not glowy tank = good. ROFL. Any half decent tanker = call in tank -> use 50+ seconds of invuln (2x cycled hardeners on a Sica) -> retreat -> call in new HAV -> recall old one -> repeat Not very hard to do. If you want to be conservative, just retreat with 20 seconds left on the second hardener, and you'll reach a safe zone with ease. If I, someone with no tank experience, can do this with militia tanks, I can only imagine that it's far easier for real tankers with their increased module duration and additional slot. Then do it. Nobody said this was supposed to be a F2P CoD. Throw some SP into tanking and have some damn fun with it. There's nothing stopping anyone from specializing in vehicles aside from their own arrogance. That's the beauty of it. I'm having tons of fun with it. Dust is still a fun game. It just makes the last 6 months I spent building my anti-infantry character feel, well, a little wasted. I don't think this is good game balance, and I don't see how you can possibly defend it as such. I do the above and AV can do literally nothing to me as long as I pay to module duration and retreat at the appropriate moment. Even with hardeners on, 2+ dedicated AVers (i.e. not AV nades) should be able to make me think twice about charging in, and right now that threat simply isn't there. Driving a blaster Sica vs a ADV swarm launcher and some form of FG, I got hit without a hardener up- but simply activated my mods and charged. I just sat in front of them and slowly DPSed them down while they tried in vain to damage me. That's just not balanced. Hardeners are a win button. Tanks should be tanky, obviously, but straight-up invulnerability is too much. CCP had the right idea with waves-of-opportunity style tanks, they just pushed the numbers a little too far.

Cosgar ParagonX 8674	Posted - 2013.12.14 08:23:00 - [21] - Quote Text Grant wrote: Cosgar wrote: Text Grant wrote: Cosgar wrote: I agree, tanks aren't OP. They're more accessible. No more SP > skill disparity to keep tanking a niche specialty anymore. You can do work with a soma or sica and get enough out of the experience to see if you want to actually invest SP. This pisses off neckbeard tankers and it pisses off AV spoiled by the crippled tanks we saw in early Uprising. Props to Wolfman for angering two communities while making a niche role viable and fun. Wow cosgar. I used to like you. You cant honestly think tanks arn't broken Never said it was perfect. AV needs to get WP for damaging vehicles again, rendering needs to improve so swarms can have a slightly longer range, proximity mines and REs need their damage to scale up and/or increase amount carried across the tiers, there needs to be more AV that's effective against shields, while tackling and EWAR needs to be a thing for both vehicles vs vehicle and infantry vs vehicle. It's a step in the right direction, but there's more room for improvement. Proxies and RE's are the only things that work so making them better would make me happy. But swarms are currently pointless and it wouldn't make a difference if you could hit from 1000 meters as the damage taken by the tank would annoy the driver at best. Proximity mines still have their range scaled to old vehicle speed values, as in beta old. REs actually aren't viable unless you're jihad jeeping. Physically running up and slapping REs on a tank's ass isn't as rewarding as it should be. It takes 3~4 to kill a militia with modules down in most cases and sometimes that's not enough. I tried to put a level into Amarr Commando once, but got a server notification saying "Why?"
Oswald Rehnquist 877	Posted - 2013.12.14 08:32:00 - [22] - Quote Cosgar wrote: Oswald Rehnquist wrote: Cosgar wrote: I agree, tanks aren't OP. They're more accessible. No more SP > skill disparity to keep tanking a niche specialty anymore. You can do work with a soma or sica and get enough out of the experience to see if you want to actually invest SP. This pisses off neckbeard tankers and it pisses off AV spoiled by the crippled tanks we saw in early Uprising. Props to Wolfman for angering two communities while making a niche role viable and fun. I actually sympathize with the nechbead tankers because they were the bottom of the food chain to now being mocked as cheap tactics, and 0 mill tankers are just as effective as 10 mill tankers, which I see as disheartening for those players who's investment has just been trivialized. People didn't like the idea of SP > skill for infantry. Why should it be the same for vehicles. The fact that it takes more skill than who has the best fit is worlds better. I just saw two soma pull a pincer on a gunlogi tonight. Probably one of the most epic things I've seen thus far. Infantry combat needs to be this fun. Then I would have to ask why have sp at all if it is reasonable to have a 10 mill tanker be about as good as a 0 mill tanker. Meaning that 10 mill tanker is now behind the 0 sp tanker because he didn't waste his sp into vehicles. I also would not want this to happen to infantry at all. I just imagine what it would be if scouts were just made easy mode that didn't require any investment and how well that would go over with the scout community, probably not so well. Niche may want buffs but they generally like the idea of it being niche and a little difficult. I don't think this counts as a rebuttal on my part, more of a fact that we just don't see eye to eye on this issue. Below 28 dB
Text Grant Death Firm. Canis Eliminatus Operatives 261	Posted - 2013.12.14 08:32:00 - [23] - Quote Cosgar wrote: Text Grant wrote: Cosgar wrote: Text Grant wrote: Cosgar wrote: I agree, tanks aren't OP. They're more accessible. No more SP > skill disparity to keep tanking a niche specialty anymore. You can do work with a soma or sica and get enough out of the experience to see if you want to actually invest SP. This pisses off neckbeard tankers and it pisses off AV spoiled by the crippled tanks we saw in early Uprising. Props to Wolfman for angering two communities while making a niche role viable and fun. Wow cosgar. I used to like you. You cant honestly think tanks arn't broken Never said it was perfect. AV needs to get WP for damaging vehicles again, rendering needs to improve so swarms can have a slightly longer range, proximity mines and REs need their damage to scale up and/or increase amount carried across the tiers, there needs to be more AV that's effective against shields, while tackling and EWAR needs to be a thing for both vehicles vs vehicle and infantry vs vehicle. It's a step in the right direction, but there's more room for improvement. Proxies and RE's are the only things that work so making them better would make me happy. But swarms are currently pointless and it wouldn't make a difference if you could hit from 1000 meters as the damage taken by the tank would annoy the driver at best. Proximity mines still have their range scaled to old vehicle speed values, as in beta old. REs actually aren't viable unless you're jihad jeeping. Physically running up and slapping REs on a tank's ass isn't as rewarding as it should be. It takes 3~4 to kill a militia with modules down in most cases and sometimes that's not enough. Jhad jeep with 7 strapped to the hood usually does the trick :)
TheBLAZZED VENGEANCE FOR HIRE 128	Posted - 2013.12.14 08:34:00 - [24] - Quote Cosgar wrote: Text Grant wrote: Cosgar wrote: Text Grant wrote: Cosgar wrote: I agree, tanks aren't OP. They're more accessible. No more SP > skill disparity to keep tanking a niche specialty anymore. You can do work with a soma or sica and get enough out of the experience to see if you want to actually invest SP. This pisses off neckbeard tankers and it pisses off AV spoiled by the crippled tanks we saw in early Uprising. Props to Wolfman for angering two communities while making a niche role viable and fun. Wow cosgar. I used to like you. You cant honestly think tanks arn't broken Never said it was perfect. AV needs to get WP for damaging vehicles again, rendering needs to improve so swarms can have a slightly longer range, proximity mines and REs need their damage to scale up and/or increase amount carried across the tiers, there needs to be more AV that's effective against shields, while tackling and EWAR needs to be a thing for both vehicles vs vehicle and infantry vs vehicle. It's a step in the right direction, but there's more room for improvement. Proxies and RE's are the only things that work so making them better would make me happy. But swarms are currently pointless and it wouldn't make a difference if you could hit from 1000 meters as the damage taken by the tank would annoy the driver at best. Proximity mines still have their range scaled to old vehicle speed values, as in beta old. REs actually aren't viable unless you're jihad jeeping. Physically running up and slapping REs on a tank's ass isn't as rewarding as it should be. It takes 3~4 to kill a militia with modules down in most cases and sometimes that's not enough. Re's are my most common type of death.... dem scouts be sneaky.
Cosgar ParagonX 8675	Posted - 2013.12.14 08:40:00 - [25] - Quote Oswald Rehnquist wrote: Cosgar wrote: Oswald Rehnquist wrote: Cosgar wrote: I agree, tanks aren't OP. They're more accessible. No more SP > skill disparity to keep tanking a niche specialty anymore. You can do work with a soma or sica and get enough out of the experience to see if you want to actually invest SP. This pisses off neckbeard tankers and it pisses off AV spoiled by the crippled tanks we saw in early Uprising. Props to Wolfman for angering two communities while making a niche role viable and fun. I actually sympathize with the nechbead tankers because they were the bottom of the food chain to now being mocked as cheap tactics, and 0 mill tankers are just as effective as 10 mill tankers, which I see as disheartening for those players who's investment has just been trivialized. People didn't like the idea of SP > skill for infantry. Why should it be the same for vehicles. The fact that it takes more skill than who has the best fit is worlds better. I just saw two soma pull a pincer on a gunlogi tonight. Probably one of the most epic things I've seen thus far. Infantry combat needs to be this fun. Then I would have to ask why have sp at all if it is reasonable to have a 10 mill tanker be about as good as a 0 mill tanker. Meaning that 10 mill tanker is now behind the 0 sp tanker because he didn't waste his sp into vehicles. I also would not want this to happen to infantry at all. I just imagine what it would be if scouts were just made easy mode that didn't require any investment and how well that would go over with the scout community, probably not so well. Niche may want buffs but they generally like the idea of it being niche and a little difficult. I don't think this counts as a rebuttal on my part, more of a fact that we just don't see eye to eye on this issue. There's still a skill gap, but this time it's a bit more about experience and player skill. A better fit and SP investment is always going to have an advantage, but you can't just sit there and spread sheet them to death. Aside from dropsuit tiers and module imbalance, it's roughly the same for infantry. Good players can get it done with starter gear, a good tanker should be able to do the same with militia. I tried to put a level into Amarr Commando once, but got a server notification saying "Why?"
Oswald Rehnquist 877	Posted - 2013.12.14 08:55:00 - [26] - Quote Cosgar wrote: There's still a skill gap, but this time it's a bit more about experience and player skill. A better fit and SP investment is always going to have an advantage, but you can't just sit there and spread sheet them to death. Aside from dropsuit tiers and module imbalance, it's roughly the same for infantry. Good players can get it done with starter gear, a good tanker should be able to do the same with militia. Tankers do not have any passive boosts at all, unlike infantry which gets a ton for every stat, and fitting on vehicles is extremely difficult meaning you are only getting the few modules up anyways. What this translates to is that it is a useless sp sink to go far into vehicles, and that vehicle depth has just became more shallow. Which I think is the wrong direction. In this iteration vehicle effectiveness are like those presets in other vanilla fps games, which is not the defining Dust characteristic. The sp sink is also deceptive because it is a waste when you can do better by just playing with the militia and just work on that. There is almost no spreadsheet at all with the vehicles as they stand at the moment. Below 28 dB
TheBLAZZED VENGEANCE FOR HIRE 128	Posted - 2013.12.14 08:55:00 - [27] - Quote I still managed to have great games and stay positive isk wise when 3 av nades was all it took to kill a tank and invisible swarms could hit me anywhere on the map. instead of crying on the forums I adapted and changed my strategy. I'm not saying there isn't a ton of rebalancing needed to be done. I am saying that running at me down the middle of the road shooting swarms it's probably not the best idea. If yall aved now like I tanked in 1.6, you'd be just fine. I think the other huge part of the problem is swarm users got used to not having to think and just pulling that trigger.
Cosgar ParagonX 8675	Posted - 2013.12.14 09:02:00 - [28] - Quote Awry Barux wrote: Cosgar wrote: Awry Barux wrote: Cosgar wrote: Text Grant wrote: If tanks arn't OP then AV is UP. Five AVers can't kill a single tank with no gunnerswhile his actives are up. Don't see the problem? Tanks are too fast to chase down, too deadly to engage directly, and too hard to engage during opportunistic times. The only way the current numbers will work is if AV is made into sidearms or equipment. Which is why I now use RE's on annoying tanks and crash an LAV into them. You asked for this. There's your problem right there. Glowy tank = Bad, not glowy tank = good. ROFL. Any half decent tanker = call in tank -> use 50+ seconds of invuln (2x cycled hardeners on a Sica) -> retreat -> call in new HAV -> recall old one -> repeat Not very hard to do. If you want to be conservative, just retreat with 20 seconds left on the second hardener, and you'll reach a safe zone with ease. If I, someone with no tank experience, can do this with militia tanks, I can only imagine that it's far easier for real tankers with their increased module duration and additional slot. Then do it. Nobody said this was supposed to be a F2P CoD. Throw some SP into tanking and have some damn fun with it. There's nothing stopping anyone from specializing in vehicles aside from their own arrogance. That's the beauty of it. I'm having tons of fun with it. Dust is still a fun game. It just makes the last 6 months I spent building my anti-infantry character feel, well, a little wasted. I don't think this is good game balance, and I don't see how you can possibly defend it as such. I do the above and AV can do literally nothing to me as long as I pay attention to module duration and retreat at the appropriate moment. Even with hardeners on, 2+ dedicated AVers (i.e. not AV nades) should be able to make me think twice about charging in, and right now that threat simply isn't there. Driving a blaster Sica vs a ADV swarm launcher and some form of FG, I got hit without a hardener up- but simply activated my mods and charged. I just sat in front of them and slowly DPSed them down while they tried in vain to damage me. That's just not balanced. Hardeners are a win button. Tanks should be tanky, obviously, but straight-up invulnerability is too much. CCP had the right idea with waves-of-opportunity style tanks, they just pushed the numbers a little too far. Like I already mentioned, there's room for improvement. Name one thing Dust related that CCP got right on the first try. I tried to put a level into Amarr Commando once, but got a server notification saying "Why?"
Cosgar ParagonX 8675	Posted - 2013.12.14 09:04:00 - [29] - Quote Oswald Rehnquist wrote: Cosgar wrote: There's still a skill gap, but this time it's a bit more about experience and player skill. A better fit and SP investment is always going to have an advantage, but you can't just sit there and spread sheet them to death. Aside from dropsuit tiers and module imbalance, it's roughly the same for infantry. Good players can get it done with starter gear, a good tanker should be able to do the same with militia. Tankers do not have any passive boosts at all, unlike infantry which gets a ton for every stat, and fitting on vehicles is extremely difficult meaning you are only getting the few modules up anyways. What this translates to is that it is a useless sp sink to go far into vehicles, and that vehicle depth has just became more shallow. Which I think is the wrong direction. In this iteration vehicle effectiveness are like those presets in other vanilla fps games, which is not the defining Dust characteristic. The sp sink is also deceptive because it is a waste when you can do better by just playing with the militia and just work on that. There is almost no spreadsheet at all with the vehicles as they stand at the moment. Should infantry have the same spreadsheet disparity then? I tried to put a level into Amarr Commando once, but got a server notification saying "Why?"
Oswald Rehnquist 877	Posted - 2013.12.14 09:11:00 - [30] - Quote Cosgar wrote: Oswald Rehnquist wrote: Cosgar wrote: There's still a skill gap, but this time it's a bit more about experience and player skill. A better fit and SP investment is always going to have an advantage, but you can't just sit there and spread sheet them to death. Aside from dropsuit tiers and module imbalance, it's roughly the same for infantry. Good players can get it done with starter gear, a good tanker should be able to do the same with militia. Tankers do not have any passive boosts at all, unlike infantry which gets a ton for every stat, and fitting on vehicles is extremely difficult meaning you are only getting the few modules up anyways. What this translates to is that it is a useless sp sink to go far into vehicles, and that vehicle depth has just became more shallow. Which I think is the wrong direction. In this iteration vehicle effectiveness are like those presets in other vanilla fps games, which is not the defining Dust characteristic. The sp sink is also deceptive because it is a waste when you can do better by just playing with the militia and just work on that. There is almost no spreadsheet at all with the vehicles as they stand at the moment. Should infantry have the same spreadsheet disparity then? I apologize I'm not exactly sure what you are asking, if you can clarify that would be great, otherwise here hopefully this hits your question right. Infantry are more spreedsheet based than vehicles, with vehicles being as close to no spreadsheets / no sp as possible in dust. I do not want infantry to go the direction of the vehicles I would rather have vehicles go back towards the direction of infantry where there is some purpose to long term investment sp wise and not just personal experience. Hopefully I answered your question there. Below 28 dB

Awry Barux Paladin Survey Force Amarr Empire 393	Posted - 2013.12.14 09:20:00 - [31] - Quote Cosgar wrote: Like I already mentioned, there's room for improvement. Name one thing Dust related that CCP got right on the first try. Of course. But you also already mentioned that "tanks aren't OP" (2nd post this thread), which I disagree with strongly. Regardless of any future improvements to balance, tanks in 1.7 are OP against everything else in 1.7. There's no disputing it- nothing in the game is immune to tank turret damage, modules provide practical invincibility against anything other than a damage-modded rail tank, and a capable tank costs less than my advanced logi fitting. They're too effective regardless of price, too effective for their price, and too cheap regardless of their effectiveness.
Cosgar ParagonX 8678	Posted - 2013.12.14 18:24:00 - [32] - Quote Oswald Rehnquist wrote: Cosgar wrote: Oswald Rehnquist wrote: Cosgar wrote: There's still a skill gap, but this time it's a bit more about experience and player skill. A better fit and SP investment is always going to have an advantage, but you can't just sit there and spread sheet them to death. Aside from dropsuit tiers and module imbalance, it's roughly the same for infantry. Good players can get it done with starter gear, a good tanker should be able to do the same with militia. Tankers do not have any passive boosts at all, unlike infantry which gets a ton for every stat, and fitting on vehicles is extremely difficult meaning you are only getting the few modules up anyways. What this translates to is that it is a useless sp sink to go far into vehicles, and that vehicle depth has just became more shallow. Which I think is the wrong direction. In this iteration vehicle effectiveness are like those presets in other vanilla fps games, which is not the defining Dust characteristic. The sp sink is also deceptive because it is a waste when you can do better by just playing with the militia and just work on that. There is almost no spreadsheet at all with the vehicles as they stand at the moment. Should infantry have the same spreadsheet disparity then? I apologize I'm not exactly sure what you are asking, if you can clarify that would be great, otherwise here hopefully this hits your question right. Infantry are more spreedsheet based than vehicles, with vehicles being as close to no spreadsheets / no sp as possible in dust. I do not want infantry to go the direction of the vehicles I would rather have vehicles go back towards the direction of infantry where there is some purpose to long term investment sp wise and not just personal experience. Hopefully I answered your question there. I'm saying should a proto suit be able to spreadsheet lower meta fits like tanks used to? I tried to put a level into Amarr Commando once, but got a server notification saying "Why?"
drake sadani Namtar Elite Gallente Federation 95	Posted - 2013.12.14 18:33:00 - [33] - Quote i'm finding it quite fun actually. i can justify all the sp i put into heavy forge nukeateer extreme. . i think they do need to put the swarms back up to standard damage . i can say it took me with my forge gun and AV nades a while to kill a tank . it was something like 5 AV packed standard . and 3 good solid adv forge gun hits. but picking them off at range is fun . tweaking needed but good direction ccp
Oswald Rehnquist 881	Posted - 2013.12.14 18:37:00 - [34] - Quote Cosgar wrote: I'm saying should a proto suit be able to spreadsheet lower meta fits like tanks used to? I think my last response answers that then, tanks are less spreadsheet than infantry as it stands, if you consider infantry "good", then tanks need to at least have the same spreadsheet potential as infantry, which has a skill to passively boost every stat. Below 28 dB
Mortedeamor WASTELAND JUNK REMOVAL Top Men. 989	Posted - 2013.12.14 18:52:00 - [35] - Quote just ran 24/0 ina mlt soma no hardeners..there were plenty of av and 4 tanks on our side including me all mlt cept 2 ...they're were other tankers in better tanks they died.
Spectre-M The Generals General Tso's Alliance 135	Posted - 2013.12.14 18:56:00 - [36] - Quote Cosgar wrote: Like I already mentioned, there's room for improvement. Name one thing Dust related that CCP got right on the first try. Not the first try. More like third. Amarr Factional Warfare Loyalist Minnmatar in Amarr Armor I am a Wolf in Sheeps Clothing
Cosgar ParagonX 8679	Posted - 2013.12.14 19:04:00 - [37] - Quote Oswald Rehnquist wrote: Cosgar wrote: I'm saying should a proto suit be able to spreadsheet lower meta fits like tanks used to? I think my last response answers that then, tanks are less spreadsheet than infantry as it stands, if you consider infantry "good", then tanks need to at least have the same spreadsheet potential as infantry, which has a skill to passively boost every stat. Actually I hope they do the opposite and remove all passive skills for infantry aside from stuff like circuitry and engineering. They made a good chili a by linking passives to efficacy bonuses but lingering skills like proficiency adding to raw DPS and shield/armor upgrades increasing HP hurt the overall skill > gear balance they keep claiming to aim for. But it also stems from TTK as well. Extenders and plates should be an added bonus, not a requirement with a higher emphasis on the complexities of different tanking types. If the new tank balancing is any indication to what 1.8's infantry balance will bring, I might get my wish. I tried to put a level into Amarr Commando once, but got a server notification saying "Why?"
Tectonic Fusion 710	Posted - 2013.12.14 19:17:00 - [38] - Quote Oswald Rehnquist wrote: Cosgar wrote: I agree, tanks aren't OP. They're more accessible. No more SP > skill disparity to keep tanking a niche specialty anymore. You can do work with a soma or sica and get enough out of the experience to see if you want to actually invest SP. This pisses off neckbeard tankers and it pisses off AV spoiled by the crippled tanks we saw in early Uprising. Props to Wolfman for angering two communities while making a niche role viable and fun. I actually sympathize with the nechbead tankers because they were the bottom of the food chain to now being mocked as cheap tactics, and 0 mill tankers are just as effective as 10 mill tankers, which I see as disheartening for those players who's investment has just been trivialized. My 2 heavy repper soma isn't as effective as a 2 reppers and a hardener basic tank... Solo Player Squad status: Locked
Seymor Krelborn DUST University Ivy League 1474	Posted - 2013.12.14 19:22:00 - [39] - Quote I agree a tank is not OP.... but maybe 10 are? that's how matches go now with anywhere from 5 or more tanks on each team on the field.... the real problem is that tank spam just makes dust boring, and even more stupid. CCp's newest joke, making setting off your own remote explosives in FW FF... awesome job ccp.
Cosgar ParagonX 8681	Posted - 2013.12.14 19:26:00 - [40] - Quote Seymor Krelborn wrote: I agree a tank is not OP.... but maybe 10 are? that's how matches go now with anywhere from 5 or more tanks on each team on the field.... the real problem is that tank spam just makes dust boring, and even more stupid. The same could be said about AR spam. I tried to put a level into Amarr Commando once, but got a server notification saying "Why?"

Oswald Rehnquist 881	Posted - 2013.12.14 19:27:00 - [41] - Quote Cosgar wrote: Oswald Rehnquist wrote: Cosgar wrote: I'm saying should a proto suit be able to spreadsheet lower meta fits like tanks used to? I think my last response answers that then, tanks are less spreadsheet than infantry as it stands, if you consider infantry "good", then tanks need to at least have the same spreadsheet potential as infantry, which has a skill to passively boost every stat. Actually I hope they do the opposite and remove all passive skills for infantry aside from stuff like circuitry and engineering. They made a good chili a by linking passives to efficacy bonuses but lingering skills like proficiency adding to raw DPS and shield/armor upgrades increasing HP hurt the overall skill > gear balance they keep claiming to aim for. But it also stems from TTK as well. Extenders and plates should be an added bonus, not a requirement with a higher emphasis on the complexities of different tanking types. If the new tank balancing is any indication to what 1.8's infantry balance will bring, I might get my wish. Unlike the logi who can actually use a ton of modules to do what they want, the more deprived classes are on the other hand much more dependent on passives. You are going to have to pardon me on this one but I find it a little suspicious to keep the cpu/pg increases when that is the logi's extreme stat, while the extreme stats of the other suits are to be dropped. I'm sure the heavy would like the ehp buffing skills (which they now lose 200+ ehp) because ehp is their extreme stat, precision and profile for scouts, and I'm pretty sure the more deprived cpu/pg classes would benefit more from dropping the cpu/pg skill because it would impact medium frames to a greater degree who have no issues with taking roles as it is. That is not even getting into the fact that racials are currently passive and if they were to be replaced with bonuses to mods then any suit with a low module count gets screwed out of less utility from their racial. A module only view is a very logi centric view because that is what logis operate on. So if that is the direction you want, classes are going to need an entire overhaul, changing all the stats again, and with logis losing their slot advantage because that would impede balance in a module only system. Below 28 dB
Tectonic Fusion 710	Posted - 2013.12.14 19:29:00 - [42] - Quote Cosgar wrote: Seymor Krelborn wrote: I agree a tank is not OP.... but maybe 10 are? that's how matches go now with anywhere from 5 or more tanks on each team on the field.... the real problem is that tank spam just makes dust boring, and even more stupid. The same could be said about AR spam. I think you mean Rail Rifle spam...but the AR is insanely good still. I don't see why some people call it "underpowered." Solo Player Squad status: Locked
Justin Tymes Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance 545	Posted - 2013.12.14 19:46:00 - [43] - Quote Cosgar wrote: I agree, tanks aren't OP. They're more accessible. No more SP > skill disparity to keep tanking a niche specialty anymore. You can do work with a soma or sica and get enough out of the experience to see if you want to actually invest SP. This pisses off neckbeard tankers and it pisses off AV spoiled by the crippled tanks we saw in early Uprising. Props to Wolfman for angering two communities while making a niche role viable and fun. The problem is that there is little reason to use Infantry, tanks completely outclass them in Ambush in gameplay and ISK sustainability, and tanks hold objectives just as well as a squad can. I have no problems with new players being able to use militia tanks to play, but why should any new player use Miltia AV, or ADV AV or even Assaults for that matter? When a certain playstyle is flat-out more viable than another, it kills diversity.
Flix Keptick Red Star. EoN. 1634	Posted - 2013.12.14 19:48:00 - [44] - Quote Tectonic Fusion wrote: Cosgar wrote: Seymor Krelborn wrote: I agree a tank is not OP.... but maybe 10 are? that's how matches go now with anywhere from 5 or more tanks on each team on the field.... the real problem is that tank spam just makes dust boring, and even more stupid. The same could be said about AR spam. I think you mean Rail Rifle spam...but the AR is insanely good still. I don't see why some people call it "underpowered." Because it's not the best at everything like it used to be. RR is better at range now. People just don't understand the concept of "niche" Making AV an actual role GÿåTank DriverGÿå
Borne Velvalor Endless Hatred 1055	Posted - 2013.12.14 20:06:00 - [45] - Quote TheBLAZZED wrote: early chromosomes I had matches where I would easily kill 50 in ambush but one proto fg would kill me. Now, 20 kills is a great game. I just think everybody got used to paper thin they were in 1.6.-á I do way less damage than I did a week ago. Here are the issues I do see currently Damage threshold for sheild tanks don't account for hardeners. They keep repping while under fire.(swarms and large blaster) Milita tanks plagued the battle feild due to their high effectiveness and low investment. vehicle quotas count as a total number of vehicles. It should be breakdown of each vehicle. Ie: 4tanks, 4 lavs , 4 ds instead of 12 vehicles (just an example. Not numbers I'm suggesting) Av has no incentive to chase tanks off. Armor is fast but it turns like a 747... maybe a extended cool down on fuel injectors would help. Sorry for another tank thread but I've been tanking a LONG time and wanted to share my thoughts. Ty 25 kills in a 50 clone Ambush is a good game for me, now. That's 50% of the enemy clones, usually while 1-2 Militia HAVs are thrown at me along with 4-5 AV players. There are 16 players. The fact that 2 of me could clone all 16 enemies without dieing is hilariously overpowering, much more so due to the low prices. Second, as for shield tanks repping under fire, at least against other vehicles, it's because they need it. Gunnlogi + 2 Shield Hardeners + Amped ADV Blaster versus Madrugar + 2 Armor Hardeners and 1 ENH or COM Armor Repairer + Amped ADV Blaster. Which wins? The Gunnlogi is far harder to use in that if you get hit before activating hardeners, your shields will, literally, drop in 2 seconds of the Madrugar's Blaster fire or 1 hit of a Railgun/Proto Forge Gun, which also stops regeneration, while the Madrugar can just activate his modules as his shields drop, since they don't affect shields anyway and he has massive reserve HP, with no delays in recovering it. If you preempt the Madrugar, blast off its shields and then you both activate your modules, the Madrugar can't really out damage your regeneration while you slowly punch through his. It already takes SO LONG that by the time his HP is critical, there is an extremely high chance your hardeners would've worn off, especially if he starts to flee making it hard to fit him, at which point he can pop you, literally, within 4 seconds. If you didn't regenerate, it would take him 10 seconds to down your shields and 2 seconds to down your armor, through 2 hardeners, while it would take you probably 20-30 seconds to kill him due to his reps. Add in the fact that hardeners last longer, cooldown faster and rep faster out of combat too due to no delays and the armor tank is 100% better. What would be the shield tanker's role then? Instantly popped by preempts and long range attacks before hardeners go on, tiny health, slow regeneration, no regeneration in combat, slower movement, need to use high slots to tank lowering DPS, speed and awareness, outlasted by two to three times by most armor hardened tanks regardless of shield hardeners, which last for a shorter period of time, have much longer cooldowns and have their stronger resistance mostly negated by their tiny HP pool and the fact that Blasters and Railguns do more damage to them than armor. I use both Gunnys and Maddys and the Gunnys are much, much harder to use. I actually lose Gunnys to AV and Turrets, whereas I only, rarely, lose a Maddy to another, usually better fitted, tank(s). Many suits I've worn, many burdens I've borne, for the oaths I've sworn. Panda.
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 4164	Posted - 2013.12.14 20:48:00 - [46] - Quote Borne Velvalor wrote: Gunnlogi + 2 Shield Hardeners + Amped ADV Blaster versus Madrugar + 2 Armor Hardeners and 1 ENH or COM Armor Repairer + Amped ADV Blaster. Which wins? 1. Blasters are a primarily anti-infantry weapon. Complaining that they take a long time to kill a tank is like complaining that an Assault Rifle takes too long to kill a tank. 2. Blasters are primarily focused on shield damage. Giving both vehicles the same weapon when one vehicle has built-in resistance to the weapon on its main tank and the other vehicle has a built-in vulnerability is a great way to introduce a huge amount of bias. The best way to kill a Blaster Tank is with another tank using a weapon that ISN'T a Blaster. If there's an enemy Madrugar running Blasters, a primarily Militia-fitted Sica can attach a Standard Large Missile Turret and destroy the Maddy before it even gets in Blaster range. Also, as a shield tank, you have a lot less to fear from AV, which is heavily weighted towards anti-armour effectiveness. Most attacks short of Proto Swarms can be shrugged off with little concern even when you're NOT running hardeners. Forge Guns are a threat, but you can retreat, recover and pop hardeners before moving in again. Quote: What would be the shield tanker's role then? Where armour is good at actively tanking infantry AV attacks because of the longer duration of their modules, shields have a better passive tank against such things, making them more suited to long-range combat and running as the AV tank. You need to have good situational awareness for AV, but you need to get in closer for anti-infantry. Putting remainder of quotes in BOLD with responses below: Instantly popped by preempts and long range attacks before hardeners go on I haven't been instantly popped even in my 110k Sica with only one Standard item in the fitting (my Large Missile Turret). tiny health My worst Sica fitting has over 5000 raw HP. slow regeneration Slightly slower, but not by much, and can be buffed with Shield Boosters. no regeneration in combat Again, this "problem" can be solved with Shield Boosters. Kind of like the problem with armour where you can't get ANY regen AT ALL without fitting a repairer. Shield tanks get passive regen WITHOUT fitting any modules, so of course that regen will come with additional limitations. slower movement but faster acceleration, making speed modules less of a necessity. need to use high slots to tank lowering DPS Have more high slots, allowing for a "glass cannon" fit that allows higher DPS than a Madrugar can ever achieve. outlasted by two to three times by most armor hardened tanks Except that this claim is only backed by the assumption that you're both using anti-shield weaponry where the armour tank has an innate advantage. and have their stronger resistance mostly negated by their tiny HP pool and the fact that Blasters and Railguns do more damage to them than armor. So negate the lacking HP pool with a Shield Booster and bring Missiles to counter armour because that's what they're weak against. I don't see how this is a problem? I use both Gunnys and Maddys and the Gunnys are much, much harder to use. I actually lose Gunnys to AV and Turrets, whereas I only, rarely, lose a Maddy to another, usually better fitted, tank(s). And I run both Sicas and Gunnlogis, and with either one, I can comfortably say that a Blaster Madrugar will die against me more often than the reverse.
Cosgar ParagonX 8682	Posted - 2013.12.14 21:27:00 - [47] - Quote Oswald Rehnquist wrote: Cosgar wrote: Oswald Rehnquist wrote: Cosgar wrote: I'm saying should a proto suit be able to spreadsheet lower meta fits like tanks used to? I think my last response answers that then, tanks are less spreadsheet than infantry as it stands, if you consider infantry "good", then tanks need to at least have the same spreadsheet potential as infantry, which has a skill to passively boost every stat. Actually I hope they do the opposite and remove all passive skills for infantry aside from stuff like circuitry and engineering. They made a good chili a by linking passives to efficacy bonuses but lingering skills like proficiency adding to raw DPS and shield/armor upgrades increasing HP hurt the overall skill > gear balance they keep claiming to aim for. But it also stems from TTK as well. Extenders and plates should be an added bonus, not a requirement with a higher emphasis on the complexities of different tanking types. If the new tank balancing is any indication to what 1.8's infantry balance will bring, I might get my wish. Unlike the logi who can actually use a ton of modules to do what they want, the more deprived classes are on the other hand much more dependent on passives. You are going to have to pardon me on this one but I find it a little suspicious to keep the cpu/pg increases when that is the logi's extreme stat, while the extreme stats of the other suits are to be dropped. I'm sure the heavy would like the ehp buffing skills (which they now lose 200+ ehp) because ehp is their extreme stat, precision and profile for scouts, and I'm pretty sure the more deprived cpu/pg classes would benefit more from dropping the cpu/pg skill because it would impact medium frames to a greater degree who have no issues with taking roles as it is. That is not even getting into the fact that racials are currently passive and if they were to be replaced with bonuses to mods then any suit with a low module count gets screwed out of less utility from their racial. A module only view is a very logi centric view because that is what logis operate on. So if that is the direction you want, classes are going to need an entire overhaul, changing all the stats again, and with logis losing their slot advantage because that would impede balance in a module only system. I'm talking about getting to a point where base HP is so good on other suits that they don't have to rely on trying to out tank a logi and TTK being at a level where HP doesn't mean an instant win. I have 8 module slots at proto and would rather use them for something other than shield extenders and armor plates. I tried to put a level into Amarr Commando once, but got a server notification saying "Why?"
Borne Velvalor Endless Hatred 1055	Posted - 2013.12.15 02:04:00 - [48] - Quote Garrett Blacknova wrote: 1. Blasters are a primarily anti-infantry weapon. Complaining that they take a long time to kill a tank is like complaining that an Assault Rifle takes too long to kill a tank. Okay, change the turret to an ADV Railgun. Due to drawbacks with their modules, the shield tank hardened should die more slowly than the armor tank hardened. The first shot drops his shields, takes around the same time as the Madrugar to drop the armor at the end so we can drop those from the equation. Your DPS is 1668 damage * 0.9 efficacy * 1.3 amps * 0.6 hardener1 * 0.675 hardener2 after penalties / 2.0 charge up time plus interval and fifth second human delay - 175 repper on Madrugar. DPS? 220. TTK? 20 seconds excluding shields. In fact, due to only having 9 ammo per clip and having to reload, this is even longer. Not so different from Blasters and without reps during hardeners, the Railgun Shield Tank would die two to three times as fast as the Blaster Armor Tank, which has an "infantry" turret. Okay, change the turret to ADV Missiles. These are the last option left. A volley takes about 2 seconds. Without shield recharge you would have to kill in one burst because the reload would probably kill you. The first two missiles do almost 1200 shield damage amped so we'll say these drop the shields. Remaining volley damage is 498 damage * 1.2 * 1.3 * 0.6 * 0.675 * 10. I can't remember, but I think Missile efficacy against armor is 120%. Total damage? Slightly over 3100 damage. Over 1000 HP remains after reps, you lose. Now, if you had reload speed 5 and hit every missile in your initial volley, you could reload and they'd have 2300 armor afterwards and still have hardeners up, so another half a volley right after the reload would kill. However, an 8 second reload after skills is easily long enough for the already faster Maddy to get away, especially since he can fit nitrous as his 5th module and you cannot, due to needing at least 2 shield modules and an amp to try to outdamage his defenses. After he escapes, as your hardeners go down, his are still up and he is fully repped. Again, unable to kill in one volley, you lose. Garrett Blacknova wrote: 2. Blasters are primarily focused on shield damage. Giving both vehicles the same weapon when one vehicle has built-in resistance to the weapon on its main tank and the other vehicle has a built-in vulnerability is a great way to introduce a huge amount of bias. The best way to kill a Blaster Tank is with another tank using a weapon that ISN'T a Blaster. If there's an enemy Madrugar running Blasters, a primarily Militia-fitted Sica can attach a Standard Large Missile Turret and destroy the Maddy before it even gets in Blaster range. Also, as a shield tank, you have a lot less to fear from AV, which is heavily weighted towards anti-armour effectiveness. Most attacks short of Proto Swarms can be shrugged off with little concern even when you're NOT running hardeners. Forge Guns are a threat, but you can retreat, recover and pop hardeners before moving in again. I just did the other 2 weapons, was hoping I wouldn't have to. Also, once again, unable to pop a Maddy in a full volley gives him plenty of time to get away, fully rep and kill you. Rails are hilarious; without regen he could literally boost at you, you'd run out of all your ammo before you could kill him, and you'd be dead 10 seconds later. All to an anti-infantry tank, versus an anti-tank tank. Fear AV more as shields because if they hit me when my hardeners are down I lose most of my shields and all my reps. Armor has a shield layer, plenty of time to react. Garret Blacknova wrote: Where armour is good at actively tanking infantry AV attacks because of the longer duration of their modules, shields have a better passive tank against such things, making them more suited to long-range combat and running as the AV tank. You need to have good situational awareness for AV, but you need to get in closer for anti-infantry. The highest pool of HP you can get for 2 slots and still have the amps needed to actually kill a tank before it pops the crap out of you is two hardeners. Remove regen and you're screwed. A Booster is worth less total HP than another hardener and so is an extender. A hardener even after stacking penalties on resistance, more than doubles HP, being equal to a 2300 HP extender, while the highest is 1300. Boosters are still worse in a 1 v 1 to the death, but their faster cooldown may make them have more utility if native regen under fire were not available. As I proved with math above, a double hardened Madrugar that would normally cycle its hardeners to shrug off AV and dominate infantry with all its advantages can activate them both at once and pop any double hardened shield tanker, provided the armor pilot is not an idiot and doesn't eat a full Missile volley with no hardeners on, at which point any missile tank could've popped him, even an armor one, so why shield tank? Cont. Many suits I've worn, many burdens I've borne, for the oaths I've sworn. Panda.
KING CHECKMATE Scions of Athra 3157	Posted - 2013.12.15 02:06:00 - [49] - Quote Text Grant wrote: If tanks arn't OP then AV is UP. Five AVers can't kill a single tank with no gunners while his actives are up. Don't see the problem? Tanks are too fast to chase down, too deadly to engage directly, and too hard to engage during opportunistic times. The only way the current numbers will work is if AV is made into sidearms or equipment. Which is why I now use RE's on annoying tanks and crash an LAV into them. You asked for this. You forgot my Soma costs like 65k and my proto AVers costs 180k. And i cant still down a Soma with my AV suit. AGAIN. in order to balance tanks,reduce their number to 2 per team. Done: Balance. SCR User Since release. Charge shot / Aim to the head / Listen to QQ
TheBLAZZED VENGEANCE FOR HIRE 143	Posted - 2013.12.15 02:13:00 - [50] - Quote KING CHECKMATE wrote: Text Grant wrote: If tanks arn't OP then AV is UP. Five AVers can't kill a single tank with no gunners while his actives are up. Don't see the problem? Tanks are too fast to chase down, too deadly to engage directly, and too hard to engage during opportunistic times. The only way the current numbers will work is if AV is made into sidearms or equipment. Which is why I now use RE's on annoying tanks and crash an LAV into them. You asked for this. You forgot my Soma costs like 65k and my proto AVers costs 180k. And i cant still down a Soma with my AV suit. AGAIN. in order to balance tanks,reduce their number to 2 per team. Done: Balance. I'd be cool with that. Even as a tanker, I hate facing 4-6 enemy tanks with no av back up.

Borne Velvalor Endless Hatred 1055	Posted - 2013.12.15 02:58:00 - [51] - Quote I haven't been instantly popped even in my 110k Sica with only one Standard item in the fitting (my Large Missile Turret). I can drop a Sica's full shields in 2 seconds with a Blaster if it is unhardened. One double amped Railgun round from a Sica literally drops a Gunnlogi's shields in a single shot. It 2HKOs, with 2 seconds between the initial shot and the followup that kills you. My worst Sica fitting has over 5000 raw HP. Slightly slower, but not by much, and can be buffed with Shield Boosters. Again, this "problem" can be solved with Shield Boosters. Kind of like the problem with armour where you can't get ANY regen AT ALL without fitting a repairer. Shield tanks get passive regen WITHOUT fitting any modules, so of course that regen will come with additional limitations. The armor does not matter. The shields matter. The HP is tiny and adding an extender or booster rather than a second hardener severely gimps the amount of damage you can take in a firefight. The best durability fitting is 2 hardeners and I did the math for that fit versus an equivalent armor hardened tank for all turret types versus a blaster, an infantry turret as you say, and it loses every single one. This is a mathematical fact. A second shield hardener is worth 3200 shields after stacking penalties. (2650 + 3200) / 0.4 == 2650 / 0.4 / 0.45 within a single Blaster round in accuracy. So, this means no more math even needs to be done beyond my previous calculations, as they are all worse. The Missiles would land a full volley and die before getting to fire again with an extender or booster. The Rail would just flat out die faster as well. If neither pilots mess up, the double hardened armor tank has a trump card over the shield hardened tank, which is better than hardener + extender and hardener + booster in a tank on tank battle. but faster acceleration, making speed modules less of a necessity. The only time the speed really matters is in the Missile scenario. I'm pretty sure a Nitrous Injected Madrugar will get away from your sluggish, non-boosted Gunnlogi pretty damn fast. The Nitrous makes up for the acceleration. You don't need speed modules? In the only scenarios you would win where you don't instapop him from behind before he can activate, you need to chase him down. Regardless of whether or not you NEED them, you cannot FIT THEM anyway due to the extreme health and damage penalty. Have more high slots, allowing for a "glass cannon" fit that allows higher DPS than a Madrugar can ever achieve. If you use two amps, you have one slot left. You cannot use 3 unless you really think that 15% damage is worth dieing in 4 seconds to most decent Blaster sets. An extender is worthless, so is a booster. A hardener makes your HP jump up 150%, or 4000 HP if it's your first, three times as much as an extender and twice as much as a booster. Either way, said double hardened Madrugar still kills you. He has 1200 DPS, so 5 seconds to drop your hardened shields. I don't think you'll be popping him in 5 seconds through 2 hardeners and a repper based on all previous math with 1 amp pointing to 15-30 seconds. The glass cannon only works if you hit first before he can get anything up, at which point why am I in a Gunnloggi with "waves of opportunity"? I can fit 2 damage amps, missiles, a hardener and a heavy repper on a Madrugar. Guess what? With my hardener up I have about the same health as the Gunnlogi, but with passive reps, and I don't die as soon as someone hits me without my hardener on except for other missiles. My cooldowns are better, I'm always repping. I take some more damage from AV, lowing my HP a bit, but the passive reps lower their DPS to compensate when under fire and don't have delays once I get out of fire. Except that this claim is only backed by the assumption that you're both using anti-shield weaponry where the armour tank has an innate advantage. Read math before, should've done it earlier. Missiles are slightly better, but the Maddy is much faster and can escape, come back 10 seconds after you're done reloading and your hardeners and amp are down and pop you. His hardeners are still up, your amps are down, cannot kill even with all shots hitting. I didn't calculate the TTK for the armor tanker with all guns, because my point was to make an armor tank that defeats the most durable, damaging Gunnlogi in any head on fight (if you aren't going head on, you can use any tank in the game, including militia armor tanks). Double hardened Blaster Maddy with an amp and nitrous is the answer, because it is literally impossible to pop him with same tier gear before he pops you, or escapes by going, what is it, 50% faster than you do after nitrous (if you can't get away in 8 seconds, at least far enough to dodge 5 missiles to make the second volley also unable to kill you, then... yeah.) So negate the lacking HP pool with a Shield Booster and bring Missiles to counter armour because that's what they're weak against. I don't see how this is a problem? You don't see the problem because all the armor tankers are too busy being idiots in Somas, not doing math to optimize their durability against other tanks or lacking SP. Again, boosters, extenders and hardeners all add to the amount of damage you can take in a tank fight. Hardeners, by far, add the most. The third hardener probably ties with boosters but you need an amp to outdamage reppers because their effect on DPS is subtractive causing a threshold effect. I run both Sicas and Gunnlogis, and with either one, I can comfortably say that a Blaster Madrugar will die against me more often than the reverse. Congratulations. My posts were addressing what would happen if shield regen during hardeners was taken out. Gunny pilot's need to be more thoughful already, removing regen removes the reward for that. I use a Gunny for AV, would not without regen for reasons above. Many suits I've worn, many burdens I've borne, for the oaths I've sworn. Panda.
Text Grant Death Firm. Canis Eliminatus Operatives 270	Posted - 2013.12.15 03:06:00 - [52] - Quote TheBLAZZED wrote: KING CHECKMATE wrote: Text Grant wrote: If tanks arn't OP then AV is UP. Five AVers can't kill a single tank with no gunners while his actives are up. Don't see the problem? Tanks are too fast to chase down, too deadly to engage directly, and too hard to engage during opportunistic times. The only way the current numbers will work is if AV is made into sidearms or equipment. Which is why I now use RE's on annoying tanks and crash an LAV into them. You asked for this. You forgot my Soma costs like 65k and my proto AVers costs 180k. And i cant still down a Soma with my AV suit. AGAIN. in order to balance tanks,reduce their number to 2 per team. Done: Balance. I'd be cool with that. Even as a tanker, I hate facing 4-6 enemy tanks with no av back up. Edit: if you can't kill a stock soma with proto av, you really suck at av. He never said stock AV. He is a very good player. Try to read more.
Divu Aakmin UNIVERSAL BONDAGE 19	Posted - 2013.12.15 03:30:00 - [53] - Quote They are on your mini-map if they are in your 10-15m scan range if they are not actively scanned. Same as a dropsuit... There are loads of them in every match. Multiple people cannot take 1 proto tank out. By "timing mods" we are admitting the tanker is nearly invincible for a duration. Wtf is my logi super man button?
Divu Aakmin UNIVERSAL BONDAGE 19	Posted - 2013.12.15 03:45:00 - [54] - Quote Cosgar wrote: Text Grant wrote: If tanks arn't OP then AV is UP. Five AVers can't kill a single tank with no gunnerswhile his actives are up. Don't see the problem? Tanks are too fast to chase down, too deadly to engage directly, and too hard to engage during opportunistic times. The only way the current numbers will work is if AV is made into sidearms or equipment. Which is why I now use RE's on annoying tanks and crash an LAV into them. You asked for this. There's your problem right there. Glowy tank = Bad, not glowy tank = good. In an ambush map slghtly larger than a fish tank htf is someone going to "smart" deploy and retreat fast enough from a glowy tank? It is a lame exploit proto tankers are using to pad there kdr and wallet. Tank tactics are turn invincibility on, kill and back off until invincible again. Being invinvible to 80% of normal weapons isnt fair... so why not slap on some hardeners and make it 95%...
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 4176	Posted - 2013.12.15 05:24:00 - [55] - Quote Have you tried doing the math where you account for the range advantage of the Missile Turrets on a Sica/Gunnlogi? Because my Missile Sica with NO DAMAGE MODS can usually win in a straight 1 vs. 1 against a Madrugar. I'm a Militia tank, with only one item on my fitting that isn't Militia (main turret), and I can solo a Blaster Maddy because I will almost always hit first. 2 shots to break shields, that's easily less time than it takes for the target to 1. realise they're taking fire, 2. decide how to react, then 3, actually activate the modules needed. I'll usually hit another 2 missiles at full damage BEFORE the hardeners come into play, and that's often enough to leave the Madrugar dead before I need to reload. If not, my greater range gives me time to back up into cover, reload, and pop out for another volley a few seconds later, while they're still in a weakened state. Check out the depleted shield recharge delay - When I empty my clip, guaranteed any competent Madrugar fitting will be without shields, and thus taking decent damage, when I reappear. And if you're running double hardeners on your Sica/Gunnlogi, guess what? The higher resist means you can cycle your hardeners instead of needing to pop both at once, and keep up the still-high resist for long enough to stand up against the enemy tank. Have you considered bringing a Gunnlogi with a Heavy Shield Extender, one Hardener and a Shield Booster for mid-combat regen? Or with the Extender and dual hardeners? Either of those fittings is better than running dual hardeners and damage mod. Designing a shield tank to do what armour tanks are built for then complaining that shield tanks aren't as good is like complaining that an anti-infantry and anti-shield weapon takes to long to kill an armour tank. YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG. Also, you suck at Railguns. Fire interval 1.4s. Charge (0.35s) then fire, and your second shot can follow up not only less than 2s after your first, but less than 2s after you started charging. It's not even 3s from your first shot to the 3rd if you decide to push it and overheat the weapon. That's fast enough that, with two damage mods, you can generally 3-shot an armour tank if the first hit lands (stripping shields AND starting on the armour damage, which you forgot to account for in spite of even an unmodded Militia Railgun hitting hard enough to do so) before they activate hardeners. If they're already hardened, take 2 shots, cool down, another 2 shots and target is dead in under 4.5s - how fast can your Blaster kill me when we start at max Railgun range again? Yeah...
TheBLAZZED VENGEANCE FOR HIRE 143	Posted - 2013.12.15 06:30:00 - [56] - Quote Text Grant wrote: TheBLAZZED wrote: KING CHECKMATE wrote: Text Grant wrote: If tanks arn't OP then AV is UP. Five AVers can't kill a single tank with no gunners while his actives are up. Don't see the problem? Tanks are too fast to chase down, too deadly to engage directly, and too hard to engage during opportunistic times. The only way the current numbers will work is if AV is made into sidearms or equipment. Which is why I now use RE's on annoying tanks and crash an LAV into them. You asked for this. You forgot my Soma costs like 65k and my proto AVers costs 180k. And i cant still down a Soma with my AV suit. AGAIN. in order to balance tanks,reduce their number to 2 per team. Done: Balance. I'd be cool with that. Even as a tanker, I hate facing 4-6 enemy tanks with no av back up. Edit: if you can't kill a stock soma with proto av, you really suck at av. He never said stock AV. He is a very good player. Try to read more. 65k is almost stock. So he has 5k in mods? Still a fit starter swarms could kill. I also said "if" what specifically should I be reading?
Borne Velvalor Endless Hatred 1055	Posted - 2013.12.15 08:25:00 - [57] - Quote Garrett Blacknova wrote: Have you tried doing the math where you account for the range advantage of the Missile Turrets on a Sica/Gunnlogi? ... And if you're running double hardeners on your Sica/Gunnlogi, guess what? The higher resist means you can cycle your hardeners instead of needing to pop both at once, and keep up the still-high resist for long enough to stand up against the enemy tank. Have you considered bringing a Gunnlogi with a Heavy Shield Extender, one Hardener and a Shield Booster for mid-combat regen? Or with the Extender and dual hardeners? Either of those fittings is better than running dual hardeners and damage mod. Designing a shield tank to do what armour tanks are built for ... Also, you suck at Railguns. ... your second shot can follow up not only less than 2s after your first ... you can generally 3-shot an armour tank if the first hit lands ... Fair points. First off, my point is not that Shield tanks suck. They are very viable right now and they are my go-to AV tanks. I am definitely not complaining about their performance in TvT at the moment, I am saying that completely removing shield regen when hardeners are up will make them too squishy for too little an increase in DPS over Madrugars. Essentially, they will be glass cannons, with too few other options in how to use them. As I explained, a Booster, even without native reps, allows you to take much less damage than using another hardener. Complex Shield Extenders in a 1 v 1 extend your lifespan by 50%. The most popular Madrugar I see uses 1 Hardener and 2 Reppers for 300+ HP/S repair. Blasters almost double DPS against the popular double reps Madrugar when amped due to reppers being subtractive and not divisive, Railguns do not usually benefit from extenders as much as amps due to range, and Missiles is preference. Also, yes, I run Railguns sometimes and 3HKO most unhardened enemies with 2 Amps. As soon as they harden, you're looking at 4HKOs and 5HKOs. Double hardened with one repper is a 6HKO, assuming you preempt the first shot and he activates before the second hits. The Madrugar will not sit there for 10 seconds after his hardeners are activated and take it; he'll boost away, rep the damage done in maybe 15 seconds, realize he has 25 seconds to go on his hardeners and your amps will already be down very, very soon and boost at you. Unless you're behind the redline or have multiple rail tanks (you could use Somas if you do, hah), he could go right up to you and pop you within the time of his hardeners and you'd be helpless, because you'd need probably 8 unamped shots to kill him and it takes him maybe 8 seconds to kill you through hardener without regen. A competent Madrugar in a burst damage resistant fitting can pop a glass cannon Gunnlogi or Sica pretty easily, all the while performing anti infantry as well, because his Blaster works well on both shields and infantry. Most armor tankers are too busy stacking as many reppers as they can to bother with this, which makes them easier targets to burst damage. The regen offers us a bit more breathing room when we harden to prevent the enemy tank from just rolling up and popping us and also offers us a few options that give us high burst defense for a limited time to disable dangerous threats. Basically, you want shield tanks to be burst offense and armor to be burst defense. Rather than offense vs defense, long range because you're too squishy vs close range because you're very hard, I want burst vs sustainable. Without regen, armor HAVs would just straight up be more survivable, even when your "waves of opportunity" are in play, because you're just trading defense for offense which equalizes the TTKs, unless you get a preempt from 300m away. I was not aware that shield tanks were "3 Damage Amplifier Railgun Redline AV Tanks" and should lose, even when hardened, to an equally hardened armor tank in most other situations. You could use all 3 of your highs on shields, but they can use all 3 of their lows on armor and still fit an amp and nitrous. You want to talk Railgun balance? Well, nothing stops the Madrugar from fitting a Railgun with 2 damage modifiers, a hardener, a repper and a CPU mod. It does 20% more damage to you than you do to it, it's faster, has a longer lasting hardener, faster cooldown, reps while under fire and can be preempted and survive. Meanwhile, you're double amped, one hardener fit takes one shot to shields, loses them all, activates hardener too late and dies in 1 more shot if it gets preempted. 2 shots to armor with a hybrid tank. Especially at low SP levels, armor tanks can actually make good rail tanks. As for cycling hardeners, they're a joke without the regen that is protecting you that you want to remove. Armor tanks can cycle and get the same results if you remove the shield regen. 2650 health / 0.4 damage multiplier is the same as 4000 health / 0.6 damage multiplier, which CCP obviously did on purpose. Your health to damage ration is condensed, so healing is faster, which doesn't help you if you can't regen. Cycled Shield Hardeners get the same base TTK, but take 20% more damage from Blasters and Railguns than armor, last 20% shorter in duration, etc. The advantage is you rep faster under fire than cycled armor hardeners + repper. You can't regen if you're dead and the delay lowers the speed. Sure, they can fit a damage amp. So can the Madrugar. The Madrugar has room left for a Nitrous, while the Gunnlogi is stuck with low slots, which you can only fill with ammo (not that useful) or armor (not great on a shield tank). For example of severity of nerf, you'd take double damage from non-amplified Blasters. After heat, you more than halve your lifespan by removing regen. I'd prefer if they nerfed regen while hardened without removing it correctly. Something like 170 unhardened, 100 hardened and 80 double hardened, as the hardeners put a strain on the HAV. Many suits I've worn, many burdens I've borne, for the oaths I've sworn. Panda.
Zerus Ni'Kator Brutor Vanguard Minmatar Republic 11	Posted - 2013.12.15 09:26:00 - [58] - Quote Cosgar wrote: Seymor Krelborn wrote: I agree a tank is not OP.... but maybe 10 are? that's how matches go now with anywhere from 5 or more tanks on each team on the field.... the real problem is that tank spam just makes dust boring, and even more stupid. The same could be said about AR spam. You just lost any respect I had left for you with that comment 1/2 tanks on each team max .. not 4/5 ... that's the problem
Atom Heart Mother Nazionali Senza Filtro 76	Posted - 2013.12.15 09:51:00 - [59] - Quote Rebuff AV and it will be perfect.
Divu Aakmin UNIVERSAL BONDAGE 20	Posted - 2013.12.15 16:45:00 - [60] - Quote TheBLAZZED wrote: Text Grant wrote: TheBLAZZED wrote: KING CHECKMATE wrote: Text Grant wrote: If tanks arn't OP then AV is UP. Five AVers can't kill a single tank with no gunners while his actives are up. Don't see the problem? Tanks are too fast to chase down, too deadly to engage directly, and too hard to engage during opportunistic times. The only way the current numbers will work is if AV is made into sidearms or equipment. Which is why I now use RE's on annoying tanks and crash an LAV into them. You asked for this. You forgot my Soma costs like 65k and my proto AVers costs 180k. And i cant still down a Soma with my AV suit. AGAIN. in order to balance tanks,reduce their number to 2 per team. Done: Balance. I'd be cool with that. Even as a tanker, I hate facing 4-6 enemy tanks with no av back up. Edit: if you can't kill a stock soma with proto av, you really suck at av. He never said stock AV. He is a very good player. Try to read more. 65k is almost stock. So he has 5k in mods? Still a fit starter swarms could kill. I also said "if" what specifically should I be reading? When was that last time you tried to jump around a tank at close range shooting swarms and tossing grenades? From your cockpit going 30/0 in your proto tank i dont think your perspective is viable... We call AV suits yolo or al qaeda suits for a good reason. You WILL die trying most of the time. You are very vulnerable to ground troops and are primary target from the HAV.

Fran ESP11 Th3 Ch0s3n 0n3s 3	Posted - 2014.01.03 16:18:00 - [61] - Quote aren't the tanks op? hahahaahhahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahhahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahhahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahhahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahhahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahhahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahhahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahhahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. seriously, now the only way to kill a tank is with a better tank. If you have the best tank of the game, how supposed to kill you? Now this game is world of tanks with ***** soldiers which mision is die and die again vs tanks. My full lvl forge gun can't kill a 0 sp tank. Nice one ccp if i make a new character i will be invencible using militia tanks.
ZeHealingHurts HurtingHeals Seituoda Taskforce Command 974	Posted - 2014.01.03 16:48:00 - [62] - Quote TheBLAZZED wrote: The point I was trying to make is: there's a difference between overpowered and hard to kill. back in the day when I only had to shoot in the general direction of enemies and watch the war points roll in... that was overpowered See, there is godly and then there is overpowered. Lore-wise: Calamari are my preferred. Amarricans are my despised. Importantly: Frogs n' Brutes have all my stuff...
Kierkegaard Soren Forsaken Immortals Top Men. 71	Posted - 2014.01.03 16:53:00 - [63] - Quote Tank spam is just crazy; Ambush, as a game mode, is untenable unless you're the tank, and you have friends who will tank spam with you. The amount of effort, skill and gear meta level that is required for AV to knock out a MLT tank is MASSIVELY disproportionate to the damage said tank can do over the course of a match. Good tanks should require teamwork to take down, but MLT spam sicas should be a coffin for five men, as the Russians used to say. Dedicated Commando. So it's a good job KDR doesn't bother me, really.


Pages: 1 2 3 :: [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.