DUST Search - Blaster tanks are horribly unbalanced and the chief source of Infantry frustration.

Our Deepest Regret wrote:

The current level of tank sustainability is, in my opinion, perfectly fine. You can now fit your tank to be a fragile, but powerful glass cannon or a highly defense-oriented mobile fortress designed to resist damage and keep you alive. A lot of players prefer the latter, giving rise to what infantry have termed unkillable tanks.

Whatever, it's a tank. If its owner has maximized the survivability of his rig and spent his SP appropriately, then who are you to complain? If we want the maximum defense possible, then your complaints about us being hard to kill mean we've done our job correctly.

Besides, Missile tanks are not going to rack up any obscene body counts. So what do you care if you can't swarm it to death?

And Rail tanks aren't going to rack up any obscene body counts either. So what do you care if you can't swarm it to death?

Also, Blaster tanks aren't going to...oh uh. Um...uh...

Yeah, about those Blaster tanks.

CCP, even with a lowly militia turret, blaster tanks are effective against infantry to the point of being a broken mechanic. Blaster tanks are average against other tanks but OBSCENELY POWERFUL against infantry. They stand no chance. It isn't fair in the slightest, and it isn't fun. If the driver sees you, you are dead, and that is that.

I hold no grudges against a rail gun or missile tank that kills me when I play infantry. That is proof of skill in the case of the rail gunner, and luck in the case of the missile tank. But Blasters are a different story entirely. By combining a tank's high defense with the most unbeatable infantry slayer in the game, it feels like nothing less than a cheap exploit, and it really needs to be looked at.

People are blindly calling for a nerf on tanks in general, when in fact, it is this very specific sort of tank (blasters) that is causing all the trouble. The blaster turret is problematic.

It is entirely too effective.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
CharCharOdell 1819	Posted - 2013.12.20 16:25:00 - [61] - Quote So do you complain about snipers having long range, too? But when tanks equip blasters, they make themselves absolutely worthless against tanks designed to kill them. I fit my tank as a designated tank killer and k have yet to be killed by anything other than a rail gun. Gùñ-é-º+¼+ò+¦GÖÑ+ú+ú+¡ GÖÑ'Ðe+ü+üGùÑ Gùú -ä>-üð+++Ç++§<-¡<-¡ Gùó I like railguns.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 1546	Posted - 2013.12.20 16:25:00 - [62] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: LOL Infantry doesn't do that. You want AV buffed, and tanks nerfed in some way. How is that any different? I know you think that it's just your incredible skills making you do well, but the game actually is still in a process of being balanced. While I know it's difficult for you to grasp, things still have some work left. Swarms are useless vs anything but bad or unlucky vehicle operators, plasma cannons are still a joke, and as this thread is attempting to discuss, blasters are too good at being "all around" options, and should either be good at one thing or slightly less good at both. Now please, the adults are talking. Except blaster doesn't have enough range. Derrr You obviously have never tried tanking. Infantry cries for tank changes, and they don't like them. Tell them to use vehicles, they complain, and use cars anyway
DUST Fiend OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 9202	Posted - 2013.12.20 16:26:00 - [63] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: LOL Infantry doesn't do that. You want AV buffed, and tanks nerfed in some way. How is that any different? I know you think that it's just your incredible skills making you do well, but the game actually is still in a process of being balanced. While I know it's difficult for you to grasp, things still have some work left. Swarms are useless vs anything but bad or unlucky vehicle operators, plasma cannons are still a joke, and as this thread is attempting to discuss, blasters are too good at being "all around" options, and should either be good at one thing or slightly less good at both. Now please, the adults are talking. Except blaster doesn't have enough range. Derrr You obviously have never tried tanking. You can kill people on the top of the towers in the complex with A B and C while on the ground by using a large blaster.... l2aim? And I have spent my fair share of time with tanking, MUDFLAPS was my mentor Vids / O7
TEXA5 HiTM4N ROGUE SPADES 348	Posted - 2013.12.20 16:28:00 - [64] - Quote it seems that we can't have a balance conversation without spkr screaming "u just wan tank out of the game". Everything I say or do has the utmost importance.
Ryme Intrinseca 396	Posted - 2013.12.20 16:45:00 - [65] - Quote Large blasters should not be as effective as they are versus infantry and tanks. It's like having an AR that can take down tanks as easily as it can infantry. My solution would be to radically reduce ROF, to something like 12RPM - around a thirtieth of current levels. That might sound low but it's still twice as high as the ROF on an M1 Abrams 120mm cannon. I'd also increase direct damage radically, maybe by thirty times as well. This way the blaster would be hard to use versus infantry, but not impossible - it would be a OHK on any suit after all. And it would be the dominant anti-vehicle weapon within it's (relatively short) effective range. I'd also want to decrease ROF on large rails and missiles, to something like 6 and 9RPM, with corresponding increases in direct damage.
Flix Keptick Red Star. EoN. 1699	Posted - 2013.12.20 17:08:00 - [66] - Quote I think it's because we only have 3 turrets to choose from. If there was more variety you would be seeing less blasters on the field. Going to stay out of AV/V debates, better for my sanity. GÿåTank driverGÿå
Sextus Hardcock Blackwater Society 179	Posted - 2013.12.20 17:14:00 - [67] - Quote Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe wrote: ... Vehicles should function in a somewhat analogous way. Turrets should have a hard time tracking small targets, and all weapons should get a resolution property so that they deal less damage to targets with a smaller signature radius than their scan resolution. ... CCP do this. it would solve almost all problems with tanks.
Our Deepest Regret L.O.T.I.S. Public Disorder. 436	Posted - 2013.12.20 21:32:00 - [68] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: You don't have any logic. You forced the changes on CCP. CCP answered, and once again, made tanks their own best counter. But that's not fair, because infantry is supposed to do everything, with no other roles available, right? Blaster Turrets are more detrimental to infantry in 1.7 than AV ever was to vehicles. I wish we could see the body count in exact numbers. The two won't even compare. No AV player ever killed 20-30 vehicles single-handedly in one match, but one blaster tank can easily reach those numbers against infantry. It can't stay like that. It's ridiculous.
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 7562	Posted - 2013.12.21 08:42:00 - [69] - Quote Dev post would be nice Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of the threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+
Keri Starlight 0uter.Heaven 2062	Posted - 2013.12.21 09:07:00 - [70] - Quote So why should we even have tanks if they represent little to no threat to infantry? Why would I want to call a Rail or Missile tank if enemy tanks can't really push infantry effectively and change the battle? Rail and Missile tanks are meant to destroy blaster tanks and this is because blaster tanks can do serious damage to infantry. Sorry, but... it doesn't make any sense. 100% Achura "I load my gun with love instead of bullets"

Thurak1 Psygod9 D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 439	Posted - 2013.12.21 09:33:00 - [71] - Quote My complaint with tanks is that they are too cheap ISK wise now. Course now i actually play a tank often because i can get more kills than with my proto DS often times.
Thurak1 Psygod9 D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 439	Posted - 2013.12.21 09:35:00 - [72] - Quote Our Deepest Regret wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: You don't have any logic. You forced the changes on CCP. CCP answered, and once again, made tanks their own best counter. But that's not fair, because infantry is supposed to do everything, with no other roles available, right? Blaster Turrets are more detrimental to infantry in 1.7 than AV ever was to vehicles. I wish we could see the body count in exact numbers. The two won't even compare. No AV player ever killed 20-30 vehicles single-handedly in one match, but one blaster tank can easily reach those numbers against infantry. It can't stay like that. It's ridiculous. Yea for some reason CCP fell for the belief that it should take 4 or so dedicated AV people to bust 1 tank. They extreme reduction in price also resulted in a LOT more tanks on the BF. They are deployed like candy these days and with the speed buff they are very hard to actually destroy since they can quite literally out run swarms.
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 7665	Posted - 2013.12.29 22:09:00 - [73] - Quote Needs to be handled Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of the threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+
General12912 Gallente Marine Corps 43	Posted - 2013.12.29 22:45:00 - [74] - Quote the blaster is a Gallente weapon. its plasma based. its the shortest range turret in the game. but it is supposed to have high damage (which it doesnt compared to the other turrets). whenever im lurking enemy territory in my valor scout suit, and i see a blaster tank, i keep my distance. if thats not an option, i hide and my profile dampeners do the rest.
KEROSIINI-TERO The Rainbow Effect 919	Posted - 2013.12.30 00:37:00 - [75] - Quote Our Deepest Regret wrote: The current level of tank sustainability is, in my opinion, perfectly fine. You can now fit your tank to be a fragile, but powerful glass cannon or a highly defense-oriented mobile fortress designed to resist damage and keep you alive. A lot of players prefer the latter, giving rise to what infantry have termed unkillable tanks. Whatever, it's a tank. If its owner has maximized the survivability of his rig and spent his SP appropriately, then who are you to complain? If we want the maximum defense possible, then your complaints about us being hard to kill mean we've done our job correctly. Besides, Missile tanks are not going to rack up any obscene body counts. So what do you care if you can't swarm it to death? And Rail tanks aren't going to rack up any obscene body counts either. So what do you care if you can't swarm it to death? Also, Blaster tanks aren't going to...oh uh. Um...uh... Yeah, about those Blaster tanks. CCP, even with a lowly militia turret, blaster tanks are effective against infantry to the point of being a broken mechanic. Blaster tanks are average against other tanks but OBSCENELY POWERFUL against infantry. They stand no chance. It isn't fair in the slightest, and it isn't fun. If the driver sees you, you are dead, and that is that. I hold no grudges against a rail gun or missile tank that kills me when I play infantry. That is proof of skill in the case of the rail gunner, and luck in the case of the missile tank. But Blasters are a different story entirely. By combining a tank's high defense with the most unbeatable infantry slayer in the game, it feels like nothing less than a cheap exploit, and it really needs to be looked at. People are blindly calling for a nerf on tanks in general, when in fact, it is this very specific sort of tank (blasters) that is causing all the trouble. The blaster turret is problematic. It is entirely too effective. Actually, large blasters anti-infantry killing power got reduced from 1.6 to 1.7. Not sure if it can be seen in the numbers but the effect is lesser. Though it's true that blasters are still very effective at anti-I work. Good that they aren't quite as good as all-purpose turrets anymore: blasters have real trouble breaking through vehicle hardeners. Confession: haven't tested 1.7 missiles yet but I fully take your word that they aren't as good vs infantry. Tank spam getting onto your nerves? An improvement:
KenKaniff69 Fatal Absolution 1706	Posted - 2013.12.30 02:24:00 - [76] - Quote I call a major double standard here. Blasters are specifically designed to slay infantry. They over heat quickly and don't deal enough damage to take out tanks efficiently. Why are we crying about a turret that is doing its job. Hit detection was fixed so they are now dealing their true damage. Why were you all crying during chromosome when the turrets were dealing over 200 damage per shot AND we had active heat syncs? Since then damage has been nerfed very badly while ranges have been improved. Now a Duvolle Tac or Imperial Scrambler deal even more damage than a blaster turret, yet they are OK right? If we remove Blasters then we might as well remove rails to since they destroy tanks in 2-3 shots, just like blasters kill infantry. They over heat, shoot blanks, and have 600m ranges. Let's just remove missiles too since they kill armor tanks in one volley. Way too OP. Armor tanks just have it too hard. Why not just remove tanks then? We should take away all 3 large turrets and just have MAVs like people have been calling for. Then CCP won't have to develop new content for us. So about those vehicle locks...
Text Grant Death Firm. Canis Eliminatus Operatives 286	Posted - 2013.12.30 05:34:00 - [77] - Quote This thread actually makes sense. I think the blaster could be much harder to fit with damage drop off much sooner. I don't think the ROF or damage would need to be messed with then. But yes most of the tanks that bother me are blaster tanks. So honestly now that I think of it, tanks are not that OP... I have only been killed by rails when I go AV, and I have only been killed by missiles when I AV in tanks.
Text Grant Death Firm. Canis Eliminatus Operatives 286	Posted - 2013.12.30 05:38:00 - [78] - Quote Oh and I'm following this thread
ladwar Death by Disassociation 1940	Posted - 2013.12.30 05:48:00 - [79] - Quote Our Deepest Regret wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: You don't have any logic. You forced the changes on CCP. CCP answered, and once again, made tanks their own best counter. But that's not fair, because infantry is supposed to do everything, with no other roles available, right? Blaster Turrets are more detrimental to infantry in 1.7 than AV ever was to vehicles. I wish we could see the body count in exact numbers. The two won't even compare. No AV player ever killed 20-30 vehicles single-handedly in one match, but one blaster tank can easily reach those numbers against infantry. It can't stay like that. It's ridiculous. my missile tank has hit 20+ infantry kills... done it my missile python. i remember the good old forge sniper days where i seen them go over 40 infantry kills with zero deaths with ease. the only reason there never were 20-30 vehicle kills by a solo av was no team would field that many. Level 2 Forum Warrior, bitter vet. I shall smite Thy Trolls with numbers and truth not looking for a corp, don't ask.
Text Grant Death Firm. Canis Eliminatus Operatives 286	Posted - 2013.12.31 01:40:00 - [80] - Quote I have proto swarms with lvl 3 proficiency and I find it much easier to kill tanks with my RE's

hgghyujh Expert Intervention Caldari State 207	Posted - 2013.12.31 02:21:00 - [81] - Quote yea I tried to suggest an slight accuracy nerf to large turrets so they are just landing all their on a lav at optimal so they cant just **** infantry, but actually have to work for their infantry kills or use small turrets and passengers(small turrets would need major buffs). However every time I suggest this tankers get all but hurt saying that the blaster is not an AV weapon and that its desinged for anti infantry, and why should they need small gunners they don't want gunners and they should be able to kill infantry with the blaster with impunity. and then they complain about getting nerfed to broken. the funny thing is this would really only hurt MLT turrets as an AVer that was stupid would still get insta deaded by higher level blasters it would just take more rounds.
hgghyujh Expert Intervention Caldari State 207	Posted - 2013.12.31 02:30:00 - [82] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: So a tank cannot have a turret which kills infantry effectively but yet infantry can have a weapon like the FG which can easily kill tanks/infantry effectively??? Double standards much? Frankly its not my fault if everyone is assault and im in a tank, i pick the tank for the situation and blaster has served me well and if im getting high kill counts then whos fault is it? the work and time required to take out a tank with a forge gun is roughly analogous to a rail tank kill infantry, not hard but it take time and premeditation, blasters are more analogs to what and assualt does to a scaned sneaky scout with a low dps weapon.
Thurak1 Psygod9 D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 450	Posted - 2013.12.31 02:36:00 - [83] - Quote I would be happy if AV was simply brought back to being as effective as it used to be. I would love to see the FG get a range boost myself.
Racro 01 Arifistan 501st Knights of Leanbox INTERGALACTIC WARPIGS 94	Posted - 2013.12.31 02:39:00 - [84] - Quote as a maxed all levle 5 blaster/armour skill tanker. i can tell you. its not that easy to actually hit infantry. even with an ion cannon its going to take at least 2-4 shots to kill you (scouts and mediums) or atleast 6-9(for heaveis) going by proto suit HP here. now out of all those shots we frie more than what we need .out of the 2-4 shots to kill scouts/mediums i fiare at least 10-15 trying to hit you. you may say you die too quickly. but when iam firing at least 10 shots to hit you or mroe if your an anoyying bouncey scout. my rpm is roughly between 800-1000. so of courseyour going to die quickly. now. as turrets operate. Blasters are desgined to get into the enemy's face and obliterate it at medium-close-point blank ranges. blastersby gallente desgin are meant to be effective at killing both vehicles and infantry and utilize fast turring rates to kepp the pressure/fire on the target. however blasters lose damage as the target gets further from the blasters optimal. wich by vehicle standards is realtivley short. now whith blaster murdering infantry. its about 70% of the infantry moveing into myr ange or coeming at me with av and getting pulverised since thier at 175m which i have a large amount of damage output to kill you. (90% of people this far stand still so alot of my shots hit them and kill them) at 175m iam onyl doing roughly 50-40% of my actual damage. the other 30% of infantry dyeing is me defending objectives or destroying thier vehicles.
hgghyujh Expert Intervention Caldari State 208	Posted - 2013.12.31 02:43:00 - [85] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Korvin Lomont wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: So a tank cannot have a turret which kills infantry effectively but yet infantry can have a weapon like the FG which can easily kill tanks/infantry effectively??? Double standards much? Frankly its not my fault if everyone is assault and im in a tank, i pick the tank for the situation and blaster has served me well and if im getting high kill counts then whos fault is it? Last time I checked the rail gun is quite deadly against infantry...at least equally effectice like the forge vs infantry so whats your point? True but i like using a large duvolle so why cant i use it? Also because its a main way for killing infantry it can and does sacrifice its ability to put a severe dent into tanks oh please this is the most bullshit argument I keep hearing out of tankers, I've gone against proto rails maddies and with a full mlt tank and won with ease, blasters are the best brawling weapon out there, and the only way a rail will win up close and personal is with superior piloting same with missiles you time out their shots and force them to miss and the don't stand a chance, blaster tanks are brawlers not infantry killers, its just something they happen to be really good at, hell better at then brawling.
Racro 01 Arifistan 501st Knights of Leanbox INTERGALACTIC WARPIGS 94	Posted - 2013.12.31 02:44:00 - [86] - Quote Cat Merc wrote: I was thinking about it, and what if blasters required so much CPU/PG, that the user would be forced to have no tank? So infantry with AV could easily destroy them unless the tank kills them first. you do relize blaster have the highest power grid requiremnt of all large turrets right? the arnt as cpu relient. i could explain this but iam going to simplify it. lore of blaster tech is its easy for the computer to maintain and calcuate target trajectorys. the heavy power gird requirmtn comes form the main reactor providing energy and plasma for the blaster to use. so it has a realtivley high power gird compsumption rate. fitting blasters = not easy. even at all levle 5 for blaster half my fits still need either cpu or pwr grid upgarde. mainly cuase i use the ion cannon.
Martyr Saboteur Amarrtyrs 102	Posted - 2013.12.31 02:46:00 - [87] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Cat Merc wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: So a tank cannot have a turret which kills infantry effectively but yet infantry can have a weapon like the FG which can easily kill tanks/infantry effectively??? Double standards much? Frankly its not my fault if everyone is assault and im in a tank, i pick the tank for the situation and blaster has served me well and if im getting high kill counts then whos fault is it? The FG is not nearly as good at killing infantry as blaster turrets are. Got plenty of high kill counts with both weapons But still ignoring the point you get the FG to kills lots of tanks but i cant have a turret which can kill lots of infantry Blaster vs Tank > FG vs Tank Blaster vs Infantry > FG vs Infantry Your logic falls apart here Depends on the tank, ive had 2 blaster tanks not even go through my shields where as a FG will rip through it Also depends on the map, a FG can reach places a blaster cant Your logic fails here Your logic falls apart here ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQTSTALLION... I AM THE STALLION
hgghyujh Expert Intervention Caldari State 208	Posted - 2013.12.31 02:58:00 - [88] - Quote Our Deepest Regret wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: You don't have any logic. You forced the changes on CCP. CCP answered, and once again, made tanks their own best counter. But that's not fair, because infantry is supposed to do everything, with no other roles available, right? Blaster Turrets are more detrimental to infantry in 1.7 than AV ever was to vehicles. I wish we could see the body count in exact numbers. The two won't even compare. No AV player ever killed 20-30 vehicles single-handedly in one match, but one blaster tank can easily reach those numbers against infantry. It can't stay like that. It's ridiculous. not true yes they may have gotten more kills but thats because people can keep running suits, suits are a dime a dozen, AV has on more then one build removed tank from play altogether because they wreaked such a heavy isk loss on the pilots, and while doing this they also made AV useless to skill into because why bother if a tank popped up it would be insta killed by any AV that was fielded.
hgghyujh Expert Intervention Caldari State 208	Posted - 2013.12.31 03:07:00 - [89] - Quote frankly vehicle balance is the best its been since the E3 build and frankly better, but thats becuase there are no hulls above STD, the big thing that would really make every thing work, would be a return of dumb fire swarm(with an AV nade ignition system to prevent swarm shotties), and a slight tweak of blaster performance.
Munin-Frey Fish Spotters Inc. 59	Posted - 2013.12.31 03:15:00 - [90] - Quote All this talk about blaster range.... As if it matters. Infantry has no ability to affect range from tanks. If a tank needs a particular range to do the most damage the tank will just drive to that range and do the most damage until it retreats to regenerate. The thing that matters is that players who can't or won't play Tanks 514 will just leave. Game dies and discussion ends.



Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page