DUST Search - Remove blasters from tanks?

All Channels

General Discussions

Remove blasters from tanks?

» 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)
Cat Merc Ahrendee Mercenaries EoN. 4744	Posted - 2013.12.17 06:40:00 - [61] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Cat Merc wrote: Give me a capture card. Most tankers are **** is what I learned from this update. They rely too much on crutches and when an infantry player applies what he learned from infantry to tanks he beats up tanks left and right. LOL crutches? What crutches have we had? The Sagaris and Surya were removed because infantry tried to solo tanks with MLT Starter Fits, found out they couldn't, tanks pounded each other to kingdom come, infantry said that wasn't fair and wanted to do all that themselves, Uprising dropped, then swarms were buffed and it was the dark ages of tanking, now tanks finally see the light, and you're all not happy with the changes YOU forced on CCP. We were fine rail gunning each other all day, but nooooo, that's not fair for you, infantry is supposed to do everything in the game. ARs are supposed to kill tanks, and so are locus grenades. Please, go to Call of Duty. There aren't any vehicles for you to worry about, stop trying to destroy my play style, I don't tell infantry how they're supposed to do their own role, don't think you have the right to tell me how to do mine. Sorry what? Back in Chromo tanks went 67/0 easily, I used to run around in a proto swarms squad and we got wiped often even though we were all shooting it and then hiding when it turned it's turret. Had a scout somewhere else telling us where his turret is facing. Uprising tanks were bad, 1.7 tanks are too good, get over it. Shield regeneration bonus for Gallente Assault is about as useful as Sharpshooter for Nova Knives. Tuna > Tacos
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 1504	Posted - 2013.12.17 06:42:00 - [62] - Quote Cat Merc wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: So why do you want to remove the best anti-infantry turret from the game? If AV is hugely ineffective against tanks, tanks should be hugely ineffective against infantry. Seems fair to me. AV kills tanks from once in a while, just like railguns and missiles kill people from once in a while. How is it fair? Teamwork for thee, but no teamwork for me, such is the motto of the anti vehicle infantry.
Cat Merc Ahrendee Mercenaries EoN. 4744	Posted - 2013.12.17 06:42:00 - [63] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Cat Merc wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: So why do you want to remove the best anti-infantry turret from the game? If AV is hugely ineffective against tanks, tanks should be hugely ineffective against infantry. Seems fair to me. AV kills tanks from once in a while, just like railguns and missiles kill people from once in a while. How is it fair? How is it not fair? Shield regeneration bonus for Gallente Assault is about as useful as Sharpshooter for Nova Knives. Tuna > Tacos
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 1504	Posted - 2013.12.17 06:42:00 - [64] - Quote Cat Merc wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Cat Merc wrote: Give me a capture card. Most tankers are **** is what I learned from this update. They rely too much on crutches and when an infantry player applies what he learned from infantry to tanks he beats up tanks left and right. LOL crutches? What crutches have we had? The Sagaris and Surya were removed because infantry tried to solo tanks with MLT Starter Fits, found out they couldn't, tanks pounded each other to kingdom come, infantry said that wasn't fair and wanted to do all that themselves, Uprising dropped, then swarms were buffed and it was the dark ages of tanking, now tanks finally see the light, and you're all not happy with the changes YOU forced on CCP. We were fine rail gunning each other all day, but nooooo, that's not fair for you, infantry is supposed to do everything in the game. ARs are supposed to kill tanks, and so are locus grenades. Please, go to Call of Duty. There aren't any vehicles for you to worry about, stop trying to destroy my play style, I don't tell infantry how they're supposed to do their own role, don't think you have the right to tell me how to do mine. Sorry what? Back in Chromo tanks went 67/0 easily, I used to run around in a proto swarms squad and we got wiped often even though we were all shooting it and then hiding when it turned it's turret. Had a scout somewhere else telling us where his turret is facing. Uprising tanks were bad, 1.7 tanks are too good, get over it. So you should've skilled into tanks during Chromosome. Back then, core skills worked for both infantry and vehicles. But of course, that's too hard to do. Teamwork for thee, but no teamwork for me, such is the motto of the anti vehicle infantry.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 1504	Posted - 2013.12.17 06:44:00 - [65] - Quote Cat Merc wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Cat Merc wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: So why do you want to remove the best anti-infantry turret from the game? If AV is hugely ineffective against tanks, tanks should be hugely ineffective against infantry. Seems fair to me. AV kills tanks from once in a while, just like railguns and missiles kill people from once in a while. How is it fair? How is it not fair? Arguing with you is like talking to a brick wall. Teamwork for thee, but no teamwork for me, such is the motto of the anti vehicle infantry.
Cat Merc Ahrendee Mercenaries EoN. 4744	Posted - 2013.12.17 06:44:00 - [66] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Cat Merc wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Cat Merc wrote: Give me a capture card. Most tankers are **** is what I learned from this update. They rely too much on crutches and when an infantry player applies what he learned from infantry to tanks he beats up tanks left and right. LOL crutches? What crutches have we had? The Sagaris and Surya were removed because infantry tried to solo tanks with MLT Starter Fits, found out they couldn't, tanks pounded each other to kingdom come, infantry said that wasn't fair and wanted to do all that themselves, Uprising dropped, then swarms were buffed and it was the dark ages of tanking, now tanks finally see the light, and you're all not happy with the changes YOU forced on CCP. We were fine rail gunning each other all day, but nooooo, that's not fair for you, infantry is supposed to do everything in the game. ARs are supposed to kill tanks, and so are locus grenades. Please, go to Call of Duty. There aren't any vehicles for you to worry about, stop trying to destroy my play style, I don't tell infantry how they're supposed to do their own role, don't think you have the right to tell me how to do mine. Sorry what? Back in Chromo tanks went 67/0 easily, I used to run around in a proto swarms squad and we got wiped often even though we were all shooting it and then hiding when it turned it's turret. Had a scout somewhere else telling us where his turret is facing. Uprising tanks were bad, 1.7 tanks are too good, get over it. So you should've skilled into tanks during Chromosome. Back then, core skills worked for both infantry and vehicles. But of course, that's too hard to do. Huh? It's obvious you're hopeless, there is no reasoning with you. I didn't skill into tanks because I wanted to play as infantry, why should I be forced into tanks exactly? Tankers get to tank, infantry get to infantry. Simple. Shield regeneration bonus for Gallente Assault is about as useful as Sharpshooter for Nova Knives. Tuna > Tacos
Cat Merc Ahrendee Mercenaries EoN. 4744	Posted - 2013.12.17 06:45:00 - [67] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Cat Merc wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Cat Merc wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: So why do you want to remove the best anti-infantry turret from the game? If AV is hugely ineffective against tanks, tanks should be hugely ineffective against infantry. Seems fair to me. AV kills tanks from once in a while, just like railguns and missiles kill people from once in a while. How is it fair? How is it not fair? Arguing with you is like talking to a brick wall. I feel the same way with you. Tell me how is it not fair? Explain to me, because everyone else I talked to on Skype and IRC said it actually sounds fair, even tankers. Shield regeneration bonus for Gallente Assault is about as useful as Sharpshooter for Nova Knives. Tuna > Tacos
Lorhak Gannarsein 736	Posted - 2013.12.17 06:52:00 - [68] - Quote Cat Merc wrote: Explain to me, because everyone else I talked to on Skype and IRC said it actually sounds fair, even tankers. Seems fair. Ateast nerf the blaster against infantry; if you want to tankstomp infantry, fit some smalls and get some friends. Or perhaps nerf Large Blaster's performance against tanks, so you're about as good at dealing with tanks as a railgun is at dealing with AV. I use railguns anyway - the abundance of tanks these days requires me to run as primary AV. Also, Spkr, the abundance of one line responses from you suggests that you're the brick wall after all... >Cosgar: You know, tanks are actually paper thin once their modules are in cooldown.
Cosgar ParagonX 8813	Posted - 2013.12.17 07:03:00 - [69] - Quote Cat Merc wrote: Cosgar wrote: Cat Merc wrote: Cosgar wrote: Dropsuit HP needs to be looked into in respect to TTK anyway. I'd say leave the turrets the same and focus on the real issue. Could do that too. We need to get together and brainstorm how to fix dropsuit fittings. Somehow I managed to get back into EVE and was blown away with the new ship re-balance. Some of that needs to make its way to Dust. Imagine if dropsuit base HP was significantly increased to the point that you're less module reliant like tanks. Extenders and plates would give you a significant HP boost, but have crazy CPU/PG costs to the point that you can't equip more than one complex, two enhanced, and maybe 3-4 basic. (Depending on the suit) secondary modules like rechargers/energizers and armor reppers would cost much less to the point that you can stack them while everything else like stamina and electronics would be the easiest to fit for the sake of utility. You think this would work? Yes it would. I also had another idea, but I haven't had it peer reviewed on Skype yet. It's mostly about shields vs armor, but it also has notes about CPU/PG requirements. I also didn't finish writing it, I just wrote the general idea and some very very short descriptions of what each change is supposed to do: http://pastebin.com/aJaiqLzC I agree modules need to be shifted a bit, but that seems to be a bit too extreme, especially increasing plate penalty. The current movement penalty seems to be in a good spot, even better since the plate glitch is fixed. Damage profiles on weapons could use some work to better distinguish "Holy crap! my ScR wrecked that guys shields!" and "Damn, why did he have to be armor tanked?!" But as far as shield/armor differences and module shifting, (with possible future modules in mind) this is what I had in mind: Shields -Crazy fast regen -Can use biotics and weapon mod low slots items with little drawback -High DPS potential -Best at hit and run or kiting tactics -Good in groups without logi support -Extremely vulnerable to high alpha damage and EM -Low HP ceiling -Extenders extend depleted delay duration Armor -Highest HP ceiling -Constant repair rate built in suit (Repper module increases % like recharger for shields) -Can use utility high slot modules with no drawback -Best at snaring, (with EWAR) defending, and brawling -Better with logi support -Extremely vulnerable to high DPS or easy to evade explosives -Slow regen over time High slots: -Extenders -Rechargers/Energizers -All scanning -Range Amplifier -Shield hardeners (passive) -Damage control (works on shield/armor, passive) -Any EWAR like passive webs and nos Low slots -Regulators -All biotics -All electronics -Weapon mods -energized plating I tried to put a level into Amarr Commando once, but got a server notification saying "Why?"
Cat Merc Ahrendee Mercenaries EoN. 4748	Posted - 2013.12.17 07:13:00 - [70] - Quote Cosgar wrote: Cat Merc wrote: Cosgar wrote: Cat Merc wrote: Cosgar wrote: Dropsuit HP needs to be looked into in respect to TTK anyway. I'd say leave the turrets the same and focus on the real issue. Could do that too. We need to get together and brainstorm how to fix dropsuit fittings. Somehow I managed to get back into EVE and was blown away with the new ship re-balance. Some of that needs to make its way to Dust. Imagine if dropsuit base HP was significantly increased to the point that you're less module reliant like tanks. Extenders and plates would give you a significant HP boost, but have crazy CPU/PG costs to the point that you can't equip more than one complex, two enhanced, and maybe 3-4 basic. (Depending on the suit) secondary modules like rechargers/energizers and armor reppers would cost much less to the point that you can stack them while everything else like stamina and electronics would be the easiest to fit for the sake of utility. You think this would work? Yes it would. I also had another idea, but I haven't had it peer reviewed on Skype yet. It's mostly about shields vs armor, but it also has notes about CPU/PG requirements. I also didn't finish writing it, I just wrote the general idea and some very very short descriptions of what each change is supposed to do: http://pastebin.com/aJaiqLzC I agree modules need to be shifted a bit, but that seems to be a bit too extreme, especially increasing plate penalty. The current movement penalty seems to be in a good spot, even better since the plate glitch is fixed. Damage profiles on weapons could use some work to better distinguish "Holy crap! my ScR wrecked that guys shields!" and "Damn, why did he have to be armor tanked?!" But as far as shield/armor differences and module shifting, (with possible future modules in mind) this is what I had in mind: Shields -Crazy fast regen -Can use biotics and weapon mod low slots items with little drawback -High DPS potential -Best at hit and run or kiting tactics -Good in groups without logi support -Extremely vulnerable to high alpha damage and EM -Low HP ceiling -Extenders extend depleted delay duration Armor -Highest HP ceiling -Constant repair rate built in suit (Repper module increases % like recharger for shields) -Can use utility high slot modules with no drawback -Best at snaring, (with EWAR) defending, and brawling -Better with logi support -Extremely vulnerable to high DPS or easy to evade explosives -Slow regen over time High slots: -Extenders -Rechargers/Energizers -All scanning -Range Amplifier -Shield hardeners (passive) -Damage control (works on shield/armor, passive) -Any EWAR like passive webs and nos Low slots -Regulators -All biotics -All electronics -Weapon mods -energized plating Still iffy about damage mods going to low slots. The HP difference isn't that high with shields vs armor. Like, not at all, my best fittings for Caldari and Gallente have near identical shields/armor. Most of the fittings with 600 armor + come straight out of a forum warriors den, they're not sustainable for the most part. Armor would need some serious buffs before I would agree to damage mods moving to low slots, because otherwise armor would be worse off than it was pre 1.4. It's the only reason armor is even viable right now. Shield regeneration bonus for Gallente Assault is about as useful as Sharpshooter for Nova Knives. Tuna > Tacos

Zatara Rought Fatal Absolution 1905	Posted - 2013.12.17 07:15:00 - [71] - Quote Chunky Munkey wrote: Cat Merc wrote: Yes really. Infantry can't be slaughtered by tanks, and tanks get their tank vs tank battles. Everybody wins. Makes sense. All the infantry AV weapons are hopeless, may as well make the Anti-infantry tank weapons useless too. QFT. Master naders: Geniuses at evening the odds. Favorite Skype: Zatara.Rought
Cosgar ParagonX 8814	Posted - 2013.12.17 07:18:00 - [72] - Quote Cat Merc wrote: Cosgar wrote: I agree modules need to be shifted a bit, but that seems to be a bit too extreme, especially increasing plate penalty. The current movement penalty seems to be in a good spot, even better since the plate glitch is fixed. Damage profiles on weapons could use some work to better distinguish "Holy crap! my ScR wrecked that guys shields!" and "Damn, why did he have to be armor tanked?!" But as far as shield/armor differences and module shifting, (with possible future modules in mind) this is what I had in mind: Shields -Crazy fast regen -Can use biotics and weapon mod low slots items with little drawback -High DPS potential -Best at hit and run or kiting tactics -Good in groups without logi support -Extremely vulnerable to high alpha damage and EM -Low HP ceiling -Extenders extend depleted delay duration Armor -Highest HP ceiling -Constant repair rate built in suit (Repper module increases % like recharger for shields) -Can use utility high slot modules with no drawback -Best at snaring, (with EWAR) defending, and brawling -Better with logi support -Extremely vulnerable to high DPS or easy to evade explosives -Slow regen over time High slots: -Extenders -Rechargers/Energizers -All scanning -Range Amplifier -Shield hardeners (passive) -Damage control (works on shield/armor, passive) -Any EWAR like passive webs and nos Low slots -Regulators -All biotics -All electronics -Weapon mods -energized plating Still iffy about damage mods going to low slots. The HP difference isn't that high with shields vs armor. Like, not at all, my best fittings for Caldari and Gallente have near identical shields/armor. Most of the fittings with 600 armor + come straight out of a forum warriors den, they're not sustainable for the most part. Armor would need some serious buffs before I would agree to damage mods moving to low slots, because otherwise armor would be worse off than it was pre 1.4. It's the only reason armor is even viable right now. What damage mods? I tried to put a level into Amarr Commando once, but got a server notification saying "Why?"
Cat Merc Ahrendee Mercenaries EoN. 4749	Posted - 2013.12.17 07:22:00 - [73] - Quote Cosgar wrote: Cat Merc wrote: Cosgar wrote: I agree modules need to be shifted a bit, but that seems to be a bit too extreme, especially increasing plate penalty. The current movement penalty seems to be in a good spot, even better since the plate glitch is fixed. Damage profiles on weapons could use some work to better distinguish "Holy crap! my ScR wrecked that guys shields!" and "Damn, why did he have to be armor tanked?!" But as far as shield/armor differences and module shifting, (with possible future modules in mind) this is what I had in mind: Shields -Crazy fast regen -Can use biotics and weapon mod low slots items with little drawback -High DPS potential -Best at hit and run or kiting tactics -Good in groups without logi support -Extremely vulnerable to high alpha damage and EM -Low HP ceiling -Extenders extend depleted delay duration Armor -Highest HP ceiling -Constant repair rate built in suit (Repper module increases % like recharger for shields) -Can use utility high slot modules with no drawback -Best at snaring, (with EWAR) defending, and brawling -Better with logi support -Extremely vulnerable to high DPS or easy to evade explosives -Slow regen over time High slots: -Extenders -Rechargers/Energizers -All scanning -Range Amplifier -Shield hardeners (passive) -Damage control (works on shield/armor, passive) -Any EWAR like passive webs and nos Low slots -Regulators -All biotics -All electronics -Weapon mods -energized plating Still iffy about damage mods going to low slots. The HP difference isn't that high with shields vs armor. Like, not at all, my best fittings for Caldari and Gallente have near identical shields/armor. Most of the fittings with 600 armor + come straight out of a forum warriors den, they're not sustainable for the most part. Armor would need some serious buffs before I would agree to damage mods moving to low slots, because otherwise armor would be worse off than it was pre 1.4. It's the only reason armor is even viable right now. What damage mods? Still, not sure. Damage mods in high slots work well in tanks. Shield regeneration bonus for Gallente Assault is about as useful as Sharpshooter for Nova Knives. Tuna > Tacos
Cosgar ParagonX 8814	Posted - 2013.12.17 07:26:00 - [74] - Quote Cat Merc wrote: Still, not sure. Damage mods in high slots work well in tanks. It's a bit hit or miss. One of the biggest issues shield tanks have is they have nothing for low slots aside from ammo and enhancers. If they had passive damage mods (more CPU/PG, less bonus than active) it might even out. I'm curious what future module placement is going to look like and how it's going to work when the other two racial tanks come out. I tried to put a level into Amarr Commando once, but got a server notification saying "Why?"
Cat Merc Ahrendee Mercenaries EoN. 4749	Posted - 2013.12.17 07:32:00 - [75] - Quote Cosgar wrote: Cat Merc wrote: Still, not sure. Damage mods in high slots work well in tanks. It's a bit hit or miss. One of the biggest issues shield tanks have is they have nothing for low slots aside from ammo and enhancers. If they had passive damage mods (more CPU/PG, less bonus than active) it might even out. I'm curious what future module placement is going to look like and how it's going to work when the other two racial tanks come out. Yeah, I'm curious too. I really think they should mirror tanks in terms of armor vs shield balance, since it works well. Shields just need some modules to put there, but even currently my Sica is just as effective as my Soma. Shield regeneration bonus for Gallente Assault is about as useful as Sharpshooter for Nova Knives. Tuna > Tacos
Roger Cordill The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 276	Posted - 2013.12.17 23:33:00 - [76] - Quote message from Godin: This idea is still laughable. No.
Borne Velvalor Endless Hatred 1086	Posted - 2013.12.17 23:36:00 - [77] - Quote What players don't realize about Blasters is that they received a big range buff. Standard Blasters have a higher optimal than old Stabilized Blasters, with no additional fitting costs. 85m optimal, 175m effective from my experience. My longest kill is usually 100-150m against enemy AV. Many suits I've worn, many burdens I've borne, for the oaths I've sworn. Panda.
Roger Cordill The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 276	Posted - 2013.12.17 23:37:00 - [78] - Quote Cat Merc wrote: Cosgar wrote: Cat Merc wrote: Still, not sure. Damage mods in high slots work well in tanks. It's a bit hit or miss. One of the biggest issues shield tanks have is they have nothing for low slots aside from ammo and enhancers. If they had passive damage mods (more CPU/PG, less bonus than active) it might even out. I'm curious what future module placement is going to look like and how it's going to work when the other two racial tanks come out. Yeah, I'm curious too. I really think they should mirror tanks in terms of armor vs shield balance, since it works well. Shields just need some modules to put there, but even currently my Sica is just as effective as my Soma. message from Godin: Although it's true that the Hi slots have more things for Gallente HAV's to put on, it's not like they can fit anything in said slots, without having a **** tank (one that can not get insta ganked by a complex Gunnlogi). Fix that first, then add in more things. First thing that should come in is a vehicle jammer since we have scanners, and then tracking enhancers/disruptors next. Also, things like nanos and torque boosters should return as well.
Roger Cordill The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 276	Posted - 2013.12.17 23:39:00 - [79] - Quote Borne Velvalor wrote: What players don't realize about Blasters is that they received a big range buff. Standard Blasters have a higher optimal than old Stabilized Blasters, with no additional fitting costs. 85m optimal, 175m effective from my experience. My longest kill is usually 100-150m against enemy AV. message from Godin: .... I got a 126m headshot with a combat rifle. most blaster kills happens around 30-50 meters. Don't make it seem like it isn't. That being said, stabilized blasters better b back soon........
Borne Velvalor Endless Hatred 1090	Posted - 2013.12.18 06:23:00 - [80] - Quote Roger Cordill wrote: Borne Velvalor wrote: What players don't realize about Blasters is that they received a big range buff. Standard Blasters have a higher optimal than old Stabilized Blasters, with no additional fitting costs. 85m optimal, 175m effective from my experience. My longest kill is usually 100-150m against enemy AV. message from Godin: .... I got a 126m headshot with a combat rifle. most blaster kills happens around 30-50 meters. Don't make it seem like it isn't. That being said, stabilized blasters better b back soon........ Message from Borne: You needed a headshot and were probably at 25-30% damage. At 100m, my Blaster does 70-80% damage and does not need a headshot to kill most enemies in seconds, provided I'm accurate. Most Blaster kills occur within that range because most combat does. If the enemy sets up AV 120m away, I can kill them as they peek out to try to pop me. My longest kill two matches in a row on the first day of 1.7 were 175m and 178m. Now, those were equal to your CR kill at 126m in terms of efficacy. 100-120m? No. It's rare for my longest kill of the match to be below 80m, usually is above 100m on a map that's relatively open. Many suits I've worn, many burdens I've borne, for the oaths I've sworn. Panda.

Racro 01 Arifistan 501st Knights of Leanbox INTERGALACTIC WARPIGS 87	Posted - 2013.12.18 06:27:00 - [81] - Quote Our Deepest Regret wrote: Blaster turrets have gotten really silly, lately. The main problem is how many rounds each clip holds. Rail guns and missiles are reasonable. (9-12 rounds.) Blasters on the other hand, are downright stupid. It should be capped at 50 per clip. 50 per clip is not enough to kill an oppsoing tank if you include its rate of fire/ how quickly it heats up. and the repair rate of opposing tank. out of all the rounds in my madrugar i tend to go through all of them.


Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page