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

All Channels

General Discussions

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

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Our Deepest Regret L.O.T.I.S. Public Disorder. 418	Posted - 2013.12.20 09:57:00 - [1] - Quote 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 and needs to be looked at. It is entirely too effective.
Arkena Wyrnspire Turalyon 514 Turalyon Alliance 6497	Posted - 2013.12.20 09:57:00 - [2] - Quote Ssh, you'll upset the tankers. Level 6 Forum Warrior Lenin of the glorious armoured revolution Gallente FW - 'Turalyon'
Our Deepest Regret L.O.T.I.S. Public Disorder. 418	Posted - 2013.12.20 09:59:00 - [3] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Ssh, you'll upset the tankers. I am a tanker. I love tanks. I can't sit there and pretend I'm not seeing what I'm seeing, though.
MINA Longstrike 2Shitz 1Giggle 173	Posted - 2013.12.20 10:31:00 - [4] - Quote Wait till there's laser and projectile tanks, you haven't even begun to see the qq. Also a big portion of the 'problem' with tanks is that no one wants to switch off of their assault rifle for any reason ever. I have literally seen 7 people cowering inside a building with uplinks and nanos because 'ahmuhgurd tanks' and none of them when they died would switch to even so much as a mlt forge or swarm.
Vicious Minotaur Tronhadar Free Guard Minmatar Republic 446	Posted - 2013.12.20 10:36:00 - [5] - Quote Blaster tank turrets are pretty much glorified pre-1.7 ARs at this point...
pegasis prime BIG BAD W0LVES 1454	Posted - 2013.12.20 10:37:00 - [6] - Quote I prefer to run missiles or rails on my gunlogi but most of the time when im on squad my squad leaders want blaster support simply because of its raw killing power, I have seen threads about removing large blasters altogether but I don't think this is the solution , My personal solution would be to change the blasters rate of fire to that of the old compressed blasters as they had quite a slow rate of fire and only slightly higher damage than the satterd, this would make it still viable to get enemy infantry kills while defending your self but would take much more skill to get those kills because of the decreased rate of fire. I also think the slower rate of fire would make the turret feel more tank , i.e. slow firing but powerful cannon . Its gone from suck .....to blow level 1 forum warrior
Lorhak Gannarsein Science For Death 801	Posted - 2013.12.20 10:37:00 - [7] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Ssh, you'll upset the tankers. I have fitting opt 5 in railguns (which is another way of saying I'm reasonably SP heavy into the things - I probably should have stopped at four, but that's another matter entirely). I don't even have proto blasters, cos it's boring. Too damn easy to faceroll infantry; railing them, though, at CQC, is hilariously rewarding. >Cosgar: You know, tanks are actually paper thin once their modules are in cooldown.
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 7538	Posted - 2013.12.20 10:47:00 - [8] - Quote +1 Me at Cat_Merc were discussing the balance and logic to having a large turret designed specifically to kill infantry. He convinced me that it isn't good design, there is a reason most games don't have tanks with such high rate of fire main turrets designed to kill infantry. He concluded he'd like to see large blaster be more like plasma cannons, but that's likely too extreme to ever be implemented, but at the very least, something needs to be done about large blasters. MLT large blasters being so good leads to tanks not having to make fitting sacrifices to fit a good large blaster. Only higher tier large blasters should be that good; this was tanks must have substantial fitting sacrifices (like overall less HP and defenses) to be that good at killing infantry. Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of the threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+
Korvin Lomont United Pwnage Service RISE of LEGION 383	Posted - 2013.12.20 10:59:00 - [9] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: Wait till there's laser and projectile tanks, you haven't even begun to see the qq. Also a big portion of the 'problem' with tanks is that no one wants to switch off of their assault rifle for any reason ever. I have literally seen 7 people cowering inside a building with uplinks and nanos because 'ahmuhgurd tanks' and none of them when they died would switch to even so much as a mlt forge or swarm. The problem is why should we? When a full clip of Proto swarms with two complex damage mods is not able to bring down a soma? Why should I sacrifice 90% of my Anti Infantry power just to tickle tanks with proto AV?? There is no benefit in doing this the only halfway viable Infantry based counters to tanks are forges (that require a heavy to carry them) or RE's (coupled with AV/Flux nades) where you don't loose your AI power. The PLC is a joke and swarms not woth the risk...
HowDidThatTaste Ancient Exiles. Renegade Alliance 4228	Posted - 2013.12.20 11:11:00 - [10] - Quote Blasters should suffer the HMG curse extremely effective up close and crap at range.

Operative 1171 Aajli Bragian Order Amarr Empire 906	Posted - 2013.12.20 11:18:00 - [11] - Quote I suggested this some time ago. Even before 1.7 only the blaster madrugars were the real problem against infantry. I don't understand the logic of having a gigantic machine gun. I want a cannon. The blaster could still be the most useful against infantry while being a little more problematic but be better against tanks. Solution: nerf the RoF and increase the damage. You still get higher RoF than other turrets but you have to track a bit more to get a shot on infantry. They could jump between the rounds better. Do your part. Join the revolution. Sabotage FW. Help this game burn! BURN DUST 2014
The-Errorist Closed For Business For All Mankind 405	Posted - 2013.12.20 11:21:00 - [12] - Quote Something does need to be done about them. They feel less like ion cannons and more like ion machine-guns.
Cat Merc Ahrendee Mercenaries EoN. 4825	Posted - 2013.12.20 12:03:00 - [13] - Quote 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. Shield regeneration bonus for Gallente Assault is about as useful as Sharpshooter for Nova Knives. Tuna > Tacos
Kasote Denzara A Vulture 1427	Posted - 2013.12.20 12:12:00 - [14] - Quote Bah. It's difficult to get away from blasters, but blasters find it difficult to get away from R/Es cleverly planted. "Go ahead and dual tank. My Commando dual ganks." -Kasote Denzara You can find me in Gallente's FW. I smell of freedom.
Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe Chatelain Rapid Response Gallente Federation 452	Posted - 2013.12.20 12:34:00 - [15] - Quote In EVE large ships struggle to kill smaller ships because the large turrets are too slow to track the small, fast target. Meanwhile the small ship often can't kill the larger one because the larger one can repair faster than the smaller can do damage. Sound familiar? 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. This would allow HAVs to serve a more tank like role, providing infantry support and the like. It would also mean that AV balanced to take out HAVs wouldn't necessarily be able to completely ruin lighter vehicles. I've never been a fan of treating vehicles like double extra heavy dropsuits. They should have a completely different tactical role than dropsuits, and making it more difficult for either to kill the other would help with that.
Rasatsu Much Crying Old Experts 962	Posted - 2013.12.20 12:50:00 - [16] - Quote So are you saying that blasters are OP against tanks? Derp A Herp
GET ATMESON Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance 199	Posted - 2013.12.20 13:08:00 - [17] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: Wait till there's laser and projectile tanks, you haven't even begun to see the qq. Also a big portion of the 'problem' with tanks is that no one wants to switch off of their assault rifle for any reason ever. I have literally seen 7 people cowering inside a building with uplinks and nanos because 'ahmuhgurd tanks' and none of them when they died would switch to even so much as a mlt forge or swarm. Whats the point. They wont hurt a tank. If it does hurt the tank It will move at scout speed away from us. You know you do it. No need to lie :) 1.7 HMG hotfix works great. Now for more Heavy suits or guns soonGäó
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance 319	Posted - 2013.12.20 13:13:00 - [18] - Quote pegasis prime wrote: I prefer to run missiles or rails on my gunlogi but most of the time when im on squad my squad leaders want blaster support simply because of its raw killing power, I have seen threads about removing large blasters altogether but I don't think this is the solution , My personal solution would be to change the blasters rate of fire to that of the old compressed blasters as they had quite a slow rate of fire and only slightly higher damage than the satterd, this would make it still viable to get enemy infantry kills while defending your self but would take much more skill to get those kills because of the decreased rate of fire. I also think the slower rate of fire would make the turret feel more tank , i.e. slow firing but powerful cannon . I like this idea. Blasters are most certainly the MAIN thing infantry has got to be complaining about. Missiles and rails are not infantry slayers. They are tank slayers. Nuff Said
NOAMIzzzzz BIG BAD W0LVES 78	Posted - 2013.12.20 13:13:00 - [19] - Quote Nelf pls OP is OP
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2001	Posted - 2013.12.20 13:20:00 - [20] - Quote 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? Intelligence is OP

Korvin Lomont United Pwnage Service RISE of LEGION 384	Posted - 2013.12.20 13:23:00 - [21] - 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? 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?
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2001	Posted - 2013.12.20 13:28:00 - [22] - Quote 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 Intelligence is OP
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 7544	Posted - 2013.12.20 13:30:00 - [23] - 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? You have thousands of HP, resistances, and hardneners. You can kill infantry waaaaay faster than they can kill you, and that is IF they can kill you at all considering how fast you can escape. Infantry can only hurt you if they make significant sacrifices in their anti-infantry capabilities, which makes themselves further vulnerable. You can pretend using a blaster tank is the same kind of tradeoff and say blasters are totally ineffective against railgun and missile tanks, but I've seen blaster tanks come out on top in a tank fight (my brother is a tanker). Don't pretend its somehow equivalent. No one is saying tanks should never be able to effectively kill infantry, but ever thought there is such a thing as too effective? Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of the threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+
Korvin Lomont United Pwnage Service RISE of LEGION 384	Posted - 2013.12.20 13:30:00 - [24] - 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 Blasters are in contrast to a duvolle quite effective vs tanks...when they come in range...
Arkena Wyrnspire Turalyon 514 Turalyon Alliance 6510	Posted - 2013.12.20 13:38:00 - [25] - 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 FG is not nearly as good at killing infantry as blaster turrets are. Level 6 Forum Warrior Lenin of the glorious armoured revolution Gallente FW - 'Turalyon'
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2001	Posted - 2013.12.20 13:40:00 - [26] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf 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? You have thousands of HP, resistances, and hardneners. You can kill infantry waaaaay faster than they can kill you, and that is IF they can kill you at all considering how fast you can escape. Infantry can only hurt you if they make significant sacrifices in their anti-infantry capabilities, which makes themselves further vulnerable. You can pretend using a blaster tank is the same kind of tradeoff and say blasters are totally ineffective against railgun and missile tanks, but I've seen blaster tanks come out on top in a tank fight (my brother is a tanker). Don't pretend its somehow equivalent. No one is saying tanks should never be able to effectively kill infantry, but ever thought there is such a thing as too effective? Never said they are ineffective against missile tanks i have to play smarter and get the drop on them, also against a railgun tank i aint ever gonna dent it if its a redline railtank unless it comes out to play and i can get the drop on it Too effective? No not really, its main job is to kill infantry, maybe tanks too depending on your build Intelligence is OP
Cat Merc Ahrendee Mercenaries EoN. 4825	Posted - 2013.12.20 13:47:00 - [27] - Quote Blaster turrets are very effective against tanks, and I do mean very. I constantly beat rails and missiles simply by employing my increased rotation speed and freedom of movement to my advantage. I can easily set up situations where other tanks can't hit me while I blast them. Shield regeneration bonus for Gallente Assault is about as useful as Sharpshooter for Nova Knives. Tuna > Tacos
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2001	Posted - 2013.12.20 13:47:00 - [28] - Quote 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 Intelligence is OP
Cat Merc Ahrendee Mercenaries EoN. 4825	Posted - 2013.12.20 13:48:00 - [29] - Quote 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 Shield regeneration bonus for Gallente Assault is about as useful as Sharpshooter for Nova Knives. Tuna > Tacos
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 7546	Posted - 2013.12.20 13:50:00 - [30] - Quote 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 FG's tank-killing power is waaaaaaaaay exceeded by the large blaster's infantry-killing power. False equivalency. EDIT: Cat Merc's post above mine says it best. Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of the threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+

Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2003	Posted - 2013.12.20 13:52:00 - [31] - Quote 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 Intelligence is OP
Cat Merc Ahrendee Mercenaries EoN. 4830	Posted - 2013.12.20 13:59:00 - [32] - 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 Not really, I saw a shield tank eat up fire from 3 FG's, then a blaster came in and made toast from that tank. Also, while true the FG has more range, the tank can close that distance, while the FG is fit on a slow suit that will take forever to close the distance. It also can't chase the tank, something the blaster can do very well. Shield regeneration bonus for Gallente Assault is about as useful as Sharpshooter for Nova Knives. Tuna > Tacos
Monkey MAC Lost Millennium 1278	Posted - 2013.12.20 13:59:00 - [33] - Quote You realise this likely get worse when the minmatat autocannon is released, or the amarr wide beam laser turret. Infantry need ways of combatting the threat more, we are talking things, like dilation grenades, webifiers, heat inducers that kinda thing. Tanks 514 I told you, I bloody well told you. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
Mobius Wyvern Guardian Solutions DARKSTAR ARMY 4182	Posted - 2013.12.20 14:02:00 - [34] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: You realise this likely get worse when the minmatat autocannon is released, or the amarr wide beam laser turret. Infantry need ways of combatting the threat more, we are talking things, like dilation grenades, webifiers, heat inducers that kinda thing. Wide beam laser turret? Magic Crystal Ball, anyone? Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2003	Posted - 2013.12.20 14:02:00 - [35] - Quote Cat Merc wrote: Not really, I saw a shield tank eat up fire from 3 FG's, then a blaster came in and made toast from that tank. Also, while true the FG has more range, the tank can close that distance, while the FG is fit on a slow suit that will take forever to close the distance. It also can't chase the tank, something the blaster can do very well. Great an opposite story Tank can close the distance and die doing it Blaster can chase but doesnt mean it will get the kill, will just die tired instead Intelligence is OP
Cat Merc Ahrendee Mercenaries EoN. 4830	Posted - 2013.12.20 14:05:00 - [36] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Cat Merc wrote: Not really, I saw a shield tank eat up fire from 3 FG's, then a blaster came in and made toast from that tank. Also, while true the FG has more range, the tank can close that distance, while the FG is fit on a slow suit that will take forever to close the distance. It also can't chase the tank, something the blaster can do very well. Great an opposite story Tank can close the distance and die doing it Blaster can chase but doesnt mean it will get the kill, will just die tired instead Yes, if you chase in a straight line. I can use rails and missiles slow turning speed to my advantage. But of course, most tankers are a dumb breed. I find it hilarious how infantry in militia tanks make toast from some of the veteran tankers. Shield regeneration bonus for Gallente Assault is about as useful as Sharpshooter for Nova Knives. Tuna > Tacos
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2003	Posted - 2013.12.20 14:06:00 - [37] - Quote Cat Merc wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Cat Merc wrote: Not really, I saw a shield tank eat up fire from 3 FG's, then a blaster came in and made toast from that tank. Also, while true the FG has more range, the tank can close that distance, while the FG is fit on a slow suit that will take forever to close the distance. It also can't chase the tank, something the blaster can do very well. Great an opposite story Tank can close the distance and die doing it Blaster can chase but doesnt mean it will get the kill, will just die tired instead Yes, if you chase in a straight line. I can use rails and missiles slow turning speed to my advantage. But of course, most tankers are a dumb breed. I find it hilarious how infantry make toast from some of the veteran tankers. So then AV isnt UP and hard Intelligence is OP
Harpyja DUST University Ivy League 931	Posted - 2013.12.20 14:07:00 - [38] - Quote Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe wrote: In EVE large ships struggle to kill smaller ships because the large turrets are too slow to track the small, fast target. Meanwhile the small ship often can't kill the larger one because the larger one can repair faster than the smaller can do damage. Sound familiar? 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. This would allow HAVs to serve a more tank like role, providing infantry support and the like. It would also mean that AV balanced to take out HAVs wouldn't necessarily be able to completely ruin lighter vehicles. I've never been a fan of treating vehicles like double extra heavy dropsuits. They should have a completely different tactical role than dropsuits, and making it more difficult for either to kill the other would help with that. Dealing reduced damage to smaller targets doesn't make sense nor does it fit the lore. The reason you have scan resolution and stuff like that is because it simulates the ability of the smaller, faster ship to dodge the larger weapon. In Dust, you can't implement that because you either hit or miss and the target can dodge. Again, in EVE, there is no player input for aiming or dodging, so that becomes simulated. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
Cat Merc Ahrendee Mercenaries EoN. 4830	Posted - 2013.12.20 14:08:00 - [39] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Cat Merc wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Cat Merc wrote: Not really, I saw a shield tank eat up fire from 3 FG's, then a blaster came in and made toast from that tank. Also, while true the FG has more range, the tank can close that distance, while the FG is fit on a slow suit that will take forever to close the distance. It also can't chase the tank, something the blaster can do very well. Great an opposite story Tank can close the distance and die doing it Blaster can chase but doesnt mean it will get the kill, will just die tired instead Yes, if you chase in a straight line. I can use rails and missiles slow turning speed to my advantage. But of course, most tankers are a dumb breed. I find it hilarious how infantry make toast from some of the veteran tankers. So then AV isnt UP and hard I fixed it. I meant infantry in militia tanks make toast from some of the veteran tankers. Shield regeneration bonus for Gallente Assault is about as useful as Sharpshooter for Nova Knives. Tuna > Tacos
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2003	Posted - 2013.12.20 14:12:00 - [40] - Quote Cat Merc wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Cat Merc wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Cat Merc wrote: Not really, I saw a shield tank eat up fire from 3 FG's, then a blaster came in and made toast from that tank. Also, while true the FG has more range, the tank can close that distance, while the FG is fit on a slow suit that will take forever to close the distance. It also can't chase the tank, something the blaster can do very well. Great an opposite story Tank can close the distance and die doing it Blaster can chase but doesnt mean it will get the kill, will just die tired instead Yes, if you chase in a straight line. I can use rails and missiles slow turning speed to my advantage. But of course, most tankers are a dumb breed. I find it hilarious how infantry make toast from some of the veteran tankers. So then AV isnt UP and hard I fixed it. I meant infantry in militia tanks make toast from some of the veteran tankers. But i can do that with BPO suits Get the drop on anyone and they are toast Intelligence is OP

Cat Merc Ahrendee Mercenaries EoN. 4830	Posted - 2013.12.20 14:15:00 - [41] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: But i can do that with BPO suits Get the drop on anyone and they are toast You don't even need to get the drop on them. They often have IQ of -5 and make the dumbest tactical moves possible. It's not hard to outsmart them. Shield regeneration bonus for Gallente Assault is about as useful as Sharpshooter for Nova Knives. Tuna > Tacos
ratamaq doc Edge Regiment 265	Posted - 2013.12.20 14:17:00 - [42] - Quote Something needs to be done. Every game I'm in on manus, line harvest, or Ashlands ends up being on the giving or receiving end of this. Best counter I've been able to find? Leave battle. http://youtu.be/kdPtVYWWSOw YouTube 30D Recruiting
Akdhar Saif Forty-Nine Fedayeen Minmatar Republic 100	Posted - 2013.12.20 14:19:00 - [43] - Quote Let's not forget CCP made Dust 514 a F2P Item Shop game. This means Weapon/Vehicle Balance have to compete with "whatever-sells" and if CCP are making more money on AUR Tanks and AUR RR/CR's than it will stay like this. One of the downsides of making the game F2P
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2003	Posted - 2013.12.20 14:19:00 - [44] - Quote Cat Merc wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: But i can do that with BPO suits Get the drop on anyone and they are toast You don't even need to get the drop on them. They often have IQ of -5 and make the dumbest tactical moves possible. It's not hard to outsmart them. -5 thats pretty bad I wonder where that puts AV then, -100? Intelligence is OP
Mobius Wyvern Guardian Solutions DARKSTAR ARMY 4182	Posted - 2013.12.20 14:24:00 - [45] - 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. You know, this whole time I never even considered the fact that Blaster Turrets are hit-scan. Better idea: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kwq3fLSpEw4#t=21 You see that? Increase the rate of fire, but keep the dynamic of slow-moving balls of plasma. This will have little to no detrimental effect on its ability to hit other vehicles, but will require better aim to kill infantry. Ideally, the splash damage would be fairly low, so firing at their feet wouldn't be an effective substitute. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2003	Posted - 2013.12.20 14:46:00 - [46] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: 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. You know, this whole time I never even considered the fact that Blaster Turrets are hit-scan. Better idea: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kwq3fLSpEw4#t=21 You see that? Increase the rate of fire, but keep the dynamic of slow-moving balls of plasma. This will have little to no detrimental effect on its ability to hit other vehicles, but will require better aim to kill infantry. Ideally, the splash damage would be fairly low, so firing at their feet wouldn't be an effective substitute. Better aim? Currently i think the blaster hit detection is a bit broken, on many infantry i get shield flare but no damage to them and they escape That PS2 video is basically a faster ROF plasma cannon with not just direct damage but splash also meaning i can hit around corners without actually hitting them Intelligence is OP
DUST Fiend OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 9196	Posted - 2013.12.20 14:48:00 - [47] - Quote Just give it a much wider dispersion past close range, so it's more of a suppression weapon vs infantry, yet still has enough accuracy to be used on vehicles. Think like the HMG, but bigger Vids / O7
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2003	Posted - 2013.12.20 14:49:00 - [48] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Just give it a much wider dispersion past close range, so it's more of a suppression weapon vs infantry, yet still has enough accuracy to be used on vehicles. Think like the HMG, but bigger That could be the autocannon tbh Intelligence is OP
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 1542	Posted - 2013.12.20 15:52:00 - [49] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Cat Merc wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: But i can do that with BPO suits Get the drop on anyone and they are toast You don't even need to get the drop on them. They often have IQ of -5 and make the dumbest tactical moves possible. It's not hard to outsmart them. -5 thats pretty bad I wonder where that puts AV then, -100? I was gonna add another zero. Infantry cries for tank changes, and they don't like them. Tell them to use vehicles, they complain, and use cars anyway
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 1543	Posted - 2013.12.20 16:02:00 - [50] - Quote 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 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? Infantry cries for tank changes, and they don't like them. Tell them to use vehicles, they complain, and use cars anyway

Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 1543	Posted - 2013.12.20 16:06:00 - [51] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf 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? You have thousands of HP, resistances, and hardneners. You can kill infantry waaaaay faster than they can kill you, and that is IF they can kill you at all considering how fast you can escape. Infantry can only hurt you if they make significant sacrifices in their anti-infantry capabilities, which makes themselves further vulnerable. You can pretend using a blaster tank is the same kind of tradeoff and say blasters are totally ineffective against railgun and missile tanks, but I've seen blaster tanks come out on top in a tank fight (my brother is a tanker). Don't pretend its somehow equivalent. No one is saying tanks should never be able to effectively kill infantry, but ever thought there is such a thing as too effective? Your brother is a tanker, so do you hate him? He's using a play style you obviously don't understand, and obviously hate, and will never take the time to try to understand. 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 9200	Posted - 2013.12.20 16:07:00 - [52] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: Just give it a much wider dispersion past close range, so it's more of a suppression weapon vs infantry, yet still has enough accuracy to be used on vehicles. Think like the HMG, but bigger That could be the autocannon tbh True enough. My only complaint with tanks, generally speaking, is militia tanks. Swarms and plasma cannons need more buffs still to make them useful AV options, but standard tanks are actually almost right where they need to be. Blasters are just a bit too good at what they do, which is kill both infantry and vehicles. They either need a reasonable decrease in effectiveness for one of those, or a slight decrease for both. I think the same can be said of small missiles for dropships, but that's for another thread. Vids / O7
CommanderBolt ACME SPECIAL FORCES 449	Posted - 2013.12.20 16:11:00 - [53] - Quote While it is easier to kill infantry with a blaster turret than say a railgun.... that's the whole point! However by fitting a blaster turret you are at a disadvantage vs other more tank like tanks with railguns fit.
Zekain K Expert Intervention Caldari State 881	Posted - 2013.12.20 16:12:00 - [54] - Quote Why not slow its rof and raise heat build up per shot to mimic the compressed turret we had in 1.6? Give a little more damage! so it can deal with other tanks, but using such a turret against infantry could end up leaving it vulnerable. *CALDARI not so MASTER RACE* Forum Warrior Level: 10
Luk Manag of Terror TRE GAFFEL 244	Posted - 2013.12.20 16:15:00 - [55] - Quote No need to nerf blasters, just buff AV a bit (un-nerf). There will be bullets. ACR+SMG
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 1544	Posted - 2013.12.20 16:16:00 - [56] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: Just give it a much wider dispersion past close range, so it's more of a suppression weapon vs infantry, yet still has enough accuracy to be used on vehicles. Think like the HMG, but bigger That could be the autocannon tbh True enough. My only complaint with tanks, generally speaking, is militia tanks. Swarms and plasma cannons need more buffs still to make them useful AV options, but standard tanks are actually almost right where they need to be. Blasters are just a bit too good at what they do, which is kill both infantry and vehicles. They either need a reasonable decrease in effectiveness for one of those, or a slight decrease for both. I think the same can be said of small missiles for dropships, but that's for another thread. So basically, you still want vehicles on the nerf train. 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 9201	Posted - 2013.12.20 16:18:00 - [57] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: Just give it a much wider dispersion past close range, so it's more of a suppression weapon vs infantry, yet still has enough accuracy to be used on vehicles. Think like the HMG, but bigger That could be the autocannon tbh True enough. My only complaint with tanks, generally speaking, is militia tanks. Swarms and plasma cannons need more buffs still to make them useful AV options, but standard tanks are actually almost right where they need to be. Blasters are just a bit too good at what they do, which is kill both infantry and vehicles. They either need a reasonable decrease in effectiveness for one of those, or a slight decrease for both. I think the same can be said of small missiles for dropships, but that's for another thread. So basically, you still want vehicles on the nerf train. No, I want a balanced game. Unlike you, I actually look at the bigger picture, and not just what helps me personally Shocking, I know. Vids / O7
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 1546	Posted - 2013.12.20 16:21:00 - [58] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: Just give it a much wider dispersion past close range, so it's more of a suppression weapon vs infantry, yet still has enough accuracy to be used on vehicles. Think like the HMG, but bigger That could be the autocannon tbh True enough. My only complaint with tanks, generally speaking, is militia tanks. Swarms and plasma cannons need more buffs still to make them useful AV options, but standard tanks are actually almost right where they need to be. Blasters are just a bit too good at what they do, which is kill both infantry and vehicles. They either need a reasonable decrease in effectiveness for one of those, or a slight decrease for both. I think the same can be said of small missiles for dropships, but that's for another thread. So basically, you still want vehicles on the nerf train. No, I want a balanced game. Unlike you, I actually look at the bigger picture, and not just what helps me personally Shocking, I know. LOL Infantry doesn't do that. You want AV buffed, and tanks nerfed in some way. How is that any different? Infantry cries for tank changes, and they don't like them. Tell them to use vehicles, they complain, and use cars anyway
Ulysses Knapse Knapse and Co. Mercenary Firm 842	Posted - 2013.12.20 16:23:00 - [59] - Quote I've already found the solution. What's the difference between an immobile Minmatar ship and a pile of garbage? The pile of garbage looks nicer.
DUST Fiend OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 9202	Posted - 2013.12.20 16:23:00 - [60] - Quote 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. Vids / O7

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.

Thurak1 Psygod9 D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 451	Posted - 2013.12.31 03:19:00 - [91] - Quote hgghyujh wrote: 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. Specialized suits are not a dime a dozen. In fact there are dropsuits that cost more than tanks. In fact my fully outfitted soma costs less than just my proto heavy suit with nothing on my heavy suit.
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui Intara Direct Action Caldari State 258	Posted - 2013.12.31 03:45:00 - [92] - Quote What they should have done was to NOT take away the variety from the turrets . Just like the mods now , they are just boring . For the mods the only difference is the cool down time , again that's boring . They all have the same function , which was different and better in the previous patch because you had a choice and more customization in one's fittings . Slots are taken away and the skill tree , while simplified does not give the advantages that some of the branches of the previous tree had ... case in point , you have to go level 5 to get to the optimizer which only gives either 5% computer or 5% programming but with less slots and to not have the ability to place mods like the previous programming mods which had more benefits to them or the computer enhancement from fear of instability as far as offence or defense , you are hard pressed to find the multitude of fits that the previous fits for tanks had in the last patch . The different turrets helped to make tanking more than just rolling kill machines . They , along with the mods and enhancements , made a tank a custom piece of a players arsenal . You didn't find too many tanks that had the same stats much less the same fittings . Now that's different and boring . Bring back the variety of turrets and mods that were taken . Different turrets for different situations and circumstances . Busting your butt to acquire skill points to get basically the same mod besides the cooldown times is boring and an insult to a person's intelligence . At least the complex should do things other than give you 40 or however many seconds less of cool down time . The previous mods had specialization characteristics and particular benefits to them . Sorry for going off track . It's just hard to work hard and place skill points into something that actually has no true customization abilities to it and for those who wanted to erase the tier system . That is what it would look like and it's boring . " BANE " of ALL vehicle users , Crush , Kill and Destroy ALL vehicles !!!!!
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui Intara Direct Action Caldari State 258	Posted - 2013.12.31 03:54:00 - [93] - Quote In the last patch , much like the suits , you had a chance to knock down the PG & CPU not just being one sided to a particular mod but to your whole tank and that gave one the opportunity to make more customization and gave a greater selection . You could have one Maddy but have it set up multiple ways , with none the same as well as the Gunnlogi . You could have a army of militia tanks all performing with peak materials and being REAL game changers on the battlefield . Not now with this imbalance and boring nature . " BANE " of ALL vehicle users , Crush , Kill and Destroy ALL vehicles !!!!!
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui Intara Direct Action Caldari State 258	Posted - 2013.12.31 04:04:00 - [94] - Quote Thurak1 wrote: 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. AV can go back ( range not damage wise ) but NO and I mean NO range buff to the FG . I remember when I was assaulted by a FGner before and was getting away and that person still killed me from 300 meters away . NO lie that .. on some maps , is half the map away . It should not have that great of range to hit opponents from half the map away with the same strength as if it was 50 or 100 meters away . If it get's a range increase , the further the range , the greater the drop off . It should not hit with the same power and intensity . " BANE " of ALL vehicle users , Crush , Kill and Destroy ALL vehicles !!!!!
ladwar Death by Disassociation Legacy Rising 1944	Posted - 2013.12.31 06:24:00 - [95] - Quote https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=132747&find=unread lol stop it fools Level 2 Forum Warrior, bitter vet. I shall smite Thy Trolls with numbers and truth not looking for a corp, don't ask.
Ivy Zalinto Lo-Tech Solutions Ltd 231	Posted - 2013.12.31 06:33:00 - [96] - Quote Our Deepest Regret wrote: 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. Yep there is a reason blaster tanks are the most common tank on the field. Missiles are only less common due to the sp needed to fit them or loyalty points to use the basic level ones when unskilled. I actually run a rail gunlogi on my tanker and like it quite a bit. If only the hills werent so damn sharp and bumpy i might be able to engage and keep out of the blaster tanks advancing range. I can do so while mobile in advancing but not in retreating, just too many unanticipated bumps. Either way +1 for hitting the nail on the head. Dedicated Stealth Scout. Scout instructor; Learning Coalition Scrambler Pistol dedication
hgghyujh Expert Intervention Caldari State 208	Posted - 2013.12.31 06:43:00 - [97] - Quote Thurak1 wrote: hgghyujh wrote: 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. Specialized suits are not a dime a dozen. In fact there are dropsuits that cost more than tanks. In fact my fully outfitted soma costs less than just my proto heavy suit with nothing on my heavy suit. up untill this build the cheapest tank build was as expensive as a proto suit and more squishy, so yes by tank standards prior to this build dropsuits were a dime a dozen. now in this build you are right that is not the case and if AV players start ramping up I wouldn't be surprised to see 20-30 tanks gone in a match, single handedly no but at the same time tanks will not be doing the same either. As I said above for this to happen some changes will need to be made blasters need a rebalancing pass(not a nerf), swarms need a dumb fire, and WP need to be rewarded for damage done. but with even two out of three of those things, I think you will see that while the number of tanks will not go down much the game will find a good balance for everyone, already I spend more time dealing with AV in any vehicle I drive then indiscriminately killing infantry, but I don't quite have the respect for AV that I should, nor when playing the ground the desire to bother with AV myself.
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui Intara Direct Action Caldari State 259	Posted - 2013.12.31 06:45:00 - [98] - Quote 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? That's not completely true . You can forge gun someone and kill them inside the blast radius but with a rail gun , I have had the enemy lined up and everything , there standing still and fired and they have some damage and end up running off . You have to have everything lined up perfectly to kill a individual with a Railgun , it seems like even the splash damage does nothing . " BANE " of ALL vehicle users , Crush , Kill and Destroy ALL vehicles !!!!!
hgghyujh Expert Intervention Caldari State 208	Posted - 2013.12.31 07:06:00 - [99] - Quote oh please if you can't hit infantry with rail guns, you should stop tanking, I can't remember the last time I couldn't kill infantry in 3 shots with a ******* MLT rail.
Mordecai Sanguine What The French 235	Posted - 2013.12.31 12:42:00 - [100] - 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. That's normal dude. Rail Gun = Anti-vehicule turret. Missiles : Balanced. Blasters : Anti-Infantry turret. Blaster is way less effective against vehicules. That's why tankers complain against Rail gun turrets : Because they destroy their tnaks fast. As intended. Tanks are working fine just reduce the speed. And maybe add a little more cooldown to hardeners.

hgghyujh Expert Intervention Caldari State 213	Posted - 2014.01.01 00:31:00 - [101] - Quote Mordecai Sanguine wrote: 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. That's normal dude. Rail Gun = Anti-vehicule turret. Missiles : Balanced. Blasters : Anti-Infantry turret. Blaster is way less effective against vehicules. That's why tankers complain against Rail gun turrets : Because they destroy their tnaks fast. As intended. Tanks are working fine just reduce the speed. And maybe add a little more cooldown to hardeners. oh for ** sake they are good at AI but they are designed for brawling AV, god ***** damn it.
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui Intara Direct Action Caldari State 269	Posted - 2014.01.01 21:43:00 - [102] - Quote hgghyujh wrote: oh please if you can't hit infantry with rail guns, you should stop tanking, I can't remember the last time I couldn't kill infantry in 3 shots with a ***** MLT rail. Three shots when a FG only takes one . You should stop posting or think about what your saying . I've had heavy suits with more than 1000 Hp's one shotted with a FG . Can you do that with a Railgun ??? " BANE** " of ALL vehicle users , Crush , Kill and Destroy ALL vehicles !!!!!
The-Errorist Storm Ventures For All Mankind 434	Posted - 2014.01.02 02:43:00 - [103] - Quote One thing that bothers me is that the prototype blaster turrets are called ion "cannons" and blasters shoot plasma, while the infantry weapon, plasma cannon, shoots completely different. It would be cool is blaster turrets were like fully automatic plasma cannons with higher rate of fire, less damage per shot, and a higher magazine size.
Soldiersaint Deepspace Digital 643	Posted - 2014.01.02 03:31:00 - [104] - 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. Its a blaster turret. Its supposed to be extremely powerful against infantry. Learn the lore before you talk trash. The blaster turret is an anti infantry turret. Did you even check before you posted this?
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 7712	Posted - 2014.01.02 03:56:00 - [105] - Quote Soldiersaint wrote: 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. Its a blaster turret. Its supposed to be extremely powerful against infantry. Learn the lore before you talk trash. The blaster turret is an anti infantry turret. Did you even check before you posted this? 1) No one is denying that its meant to be anti-infantry, but there is a difference between being effective against infantry and just being plain insanely overpowered. Your logic is as ridiculous as justifying a hypothetical AV weapon that 1-hit-kills every single vehicles by saying "its supposed to be extremely powerful against vehicles". 2) Blasters and their lore originate from EVE Online, a game without any infantry; just spaceships. To say lore necessitates blasters be anti-infantry false. The lore of blasters is that they're particles contained in an electromagnetic field, and fired with magnetic propulsion. 3) Balance is far more important than lore. Only an idiot would put lore before enjoyable gameplay. No one is trying to say blasters should not be effective against infantry, but right now they're too effective. Hitscan (no bullet travel time, hits as soon as you fire), high rate of fire, huge magazine, high damage. I'm really wondering if you're a troll or something. Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of the threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 7716	Posted - 2014.01.02 13:25:00 - [106] - Quote This thread needs to stay up Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of the threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+
The-Errorist 444	Posted - 2014.01.03 01:00:00 - [107] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: This thread needs to stay up This thread will stay up.
Joeboa Bullet Cluster Legacy Rising 26	Posted - 2014.01.05 03:03:00 - [108] - Quote At this time tanks are so cheap, unkillable, and so lethal as to make any infantry insanely jealous, but for the most part I'm fine with the fact that they are so much more lethal than me, so much more defended as me, and so much more cost-effective to run in public matches. It's an important variable that adds to the challenge of this game, but there are few strategies and methods of killing them other than calling in more tanks, and if the enemy has a good rail tank they can effectively keep you from calling anything in at all. I'm very satisfied, for the most part, at where tanks are right now, but there needs to be more infantry options when it comes to dealing with tanks. I'm not sure if it's the state of AV or the state of resistance mods, but some things could certainly be tweaked.
Joeboa Bullet Cluster Legacy Rising 26	Posted - 2014.01.05 03:11:00 - [109] - Quote As for blasters, I'm cool with them instantly killing infantry. That's what they're suppose to do. Like I said, I would just like more options in dealing with tanks other than just calling in more tanks. They're cheap enough now to die, why not allow them to be killable?
Text Grant Death Firm. Canis Eliminatus Operatives 289	Posted - 2014.01.05 03:22:00 - [110] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Soldiersaint wrote: 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. Its a blaster turret. Its supposed to be extremely powerful against infantry. Learn the lore before you talk trash. The blaster turret is an anti infantry turret. Did you even check before you posted this? 1) No one is denying that its meant to be anti-infantry, but there is a difference between being effective against infantry and just being plain insanely overpowered. Your logic is as ridiculous as justifying a hypothetical AV weapon that 1-hit-kills every single vehicle by saying "its supposed to be extremely powerful against vehicles". 2) Blasters and their lore originate from EVE Online, a game without any infantry; just spaceships. To say lore necessitates blasters be anti-infantry false. The lore of blasters is that they're particles contained in an electromagnetic field, and fired with magnetic propulsion. 3) Balance is far more important than lore. Only an idiot would put lore before enjoyable gameplay. No one is trying to say blasters should not be effective against infantry, but right now they're too effective. Hitscan (no bullet travel time, hits as soon as you fire), high rate of fire, huge magazine, high damage. I'm really wondering if you're a troll or something. You make too much sense.

Thurak1 Psygod9 D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 471	Posted - 2014.01.05 03:26:00 - [111] - Quote Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote: Thurak1 wrote: 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. AV can go back ( range not damage wise ) but NO and I mean NO range buff to the FG . I remember when I was assaulted by a FGner before and was getting away and that person still killed me from 300 meters away . NO lie that .. on some maps , is half the map away . It should not have that great of range to hit opponents from half the map away with the same strength as if it was 50 or 100 meters away . If it get's a range increase , the further the range , the greater the drop off . It should not hit with the same power and intensity . at 300 meters it takes really dam good skill to kill someone or really bad luck. FG does not have a scope at all so imagine how small of a target you are at that range. Besides your arguing an infantry problem for a AV purpose.
lithkul devant Legions of Infinite Dominion 134	Posted - 2014.01.05 04:22:00 - [112] - Quote Okay....going to add my little bit to the conversation in saying that you can get a tank now for under 100k that will easily dominant on the battlefield against infantry, the shield recharger is I belive now 900 hps per pulse, including the ability to get a dampener to damage, I have literally thrown all three advanced AV gernades into a tanks face, for the tank without going into glow or afterburner, simply roll away faster then missiles could chase it and be able to hit it and recover a shield that was down to 25% damage to full within 10 seconds, this was a milita tank. When I have gone up against anything better then a milita tank my AV is completely useless, I have no reasonable way to damage a tank, tanks can drive over proxy mines faster then the proxy mines can go off. In nearly all matches one team will usually call down 3-4 tanks, no matter what the other team does, they will typically never kill even 1 of these tanks, unless they got lucky enough to have their own tanks down soon enough, so that the enemy tanks don't literally roll from across the map and kill the tank before it can drop. Dropships are unable to do the job intended for them as well if the enemy team has the tanks deployed especially if it is the rail gun tanks. Clearly without a doubt CCP screwed up and listened to all the people bitching about how tanks are "to slow" how they couldn't turn fast enough, now I will admit they did have some survivability problems when in close quarters and a few AV gernades could ruin their day. However, this is way more ridiculous, a proto anti tank weapon aka swarm launcher, can not even effectively take out a tank now even when fully unloading the gun on one tank that is a milita tank, because the tank can move to fast and dodge to easily the rather lack luster swarm missiles AI. So in short a gun that costs more then the tank it is trying to kill, with the singular purpose of being able to kill vehicles can no longer do its job. In fact it has gotten so bad, that I only will see 1 swarm launcher infantry per match, till they realize, that they can't hurt the milita tank with the swarm launcher. In all wars historically Infantry have been able to effectively destroy, disable, or sabotage a tank and its crew from the conception of tanks infantry have been an issue for tanks. Yes tanks can mow them down and run them over, however, tanks have also been very vunerable to them and have needed to use infantry and other vehicles and scouting techniques in order for themselves to be effective and not be destroyed or disabled. I truly do hope that 1.8 will put the equation back to how it should be, with infantry able to effectively harrass tanks.
Our Deepest Regret L.O.T.I.S. D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 479	Posted - 2014.01.05 08:32:00 - [113] - Quote lithkul devant wrote: Okay....going to add my little bit to the conversation in saying that you can get a tank now for under 100k that will easily dominant on the battlefield against infantry, the shield recharger is I belive now 900 hps per pulse, including the ability to get a dampener to damage, I have literally thrown all three advanced AV gernades into a tanks face, for the tank without going into glow or afterburner, simply roll away faster then missiles could chase it and be able to hit it and recover a shield that was down to 25% damage to full within 10 seconds, this was a milita tank. When I have gone up against anything better then a milita tank my AV is completely useless, I have no reasonable way to damage a tank, tanks can drive over proxy mines faster then the proxy mines can go off. In nearly all matches one team will usually call down 3-4 tanks, no matter what the other team does, they will typically never kill even 1 of these tanks, unless they got lucky enough to have their own tanks down soon enough, so that the enemy tanks don't literally roll from across the map and kill the tank before it can drop. Dropships are unable to do the job intended for them as well if the enemy team has the tanks deployed especially if it is the rail gun tanks. Clearly without a doubt CCP screwed up and listened to all the people bitching about how tanks are "to slow" how they couldn't turn fast enough, now I will admit they did have some survivability problems when in close quarters and a few AV gernades could ruin their day. However, this is way more ridiculous, a proto anti tank weapon aka swarm launcher, can not even effectively take out a tank now even when fully unloading the gun on one tank that is a milita tank, because the tank can move to fast and dodge to easily the rather lack luster swarm missiles AI. So in short a gun that costs more then the tank it is trying to kill, with the singular purpose of being able to kill vehicles can no longer do its job. In fact it has gotten so bad, that I only will see 1 swarm launcher infantry per match, till they realize, that they can't hurt the milita tank with the swarm launcher. In all wars historically Infantry have been able to effectively destroy, disable, or sabotage a tank and its crew from the conception of tanks infantry have been an issue for tanks. Yes tanks can mow them down and run them over, however, tanks have also been very vunerable to them and have needed to use infantry and other vehicles and scouting techniques in order for themselves to be effective and not be destroyed or disabled. I truly do hope that 1.8 will put the equation back to how it should be, with infantry able to effectively harrass tanks. It's not about AV, man. It's about how utterly broken blasters are. It's true that AV being more powerful would neuter blaster tanks pretty effectively, but it would also ruin the game for rail tankers, missile tankers, and drop ship pilots. You can't balance one extreme with another, as we've all discovered so horrifically. Finding a way to fix blasters will allow the current vehicle vs. Vehicle game (which is fun) to remain, while removing the frustrating tank vs. Infantry game (which is broken.)
Alabastor 'TheBlaster' Alcar Silver Bullet Solutions DARKSTAR ARMY 293	Posted - 2014.01.05 12:14:00 - [114] - Quote ummmmm... blasters kill people its what they are good at to say that they kill peolle too well is dumb, just as dumb as the infantry that shoots at a blaster tank with his anti infantry ar. how about this if you dont have weapons to fight a blaster tank avoid the freakin tank do your best to avoid it and run, cause the blaster is looking for kills and he will get them if you dont pay attention to him. to say that blasters are too effective at what they are intended for is ridiculous its suppost to kill people and thats exactly what it does.
SKULL ERASER SVER True Blood Public Disorder. 0	Posted - 2014.01.05 12:21:00 - [115] - Quote Add two new game modes, all vehicles and no vehicles. Sorted.
Alabastor 'TheBlaster' Alcar Silver Bullet Solutions DARKSTAR ARMY 293	Posted - 2014.01.05 12:22:00 - [116] - Quote no
Cedric Reeg Black Phoenix Mercenaries Legacy Rising 6	Posted - 2014.01.05 13:21:00 - [117] - Quote Contrasting DUST and BF4; Tanks are more durable in DUST than BF4. Either through constant HP recovery, damage resistance or a mix of both. In BF4, I can both an AV weapon and a anti-Infantry weapon at the same time. In DUST I must choose between one or the other. Short break while this point is here, Blasters (what all the fuss is about) are in my eyes a middle ground in weapon types, much like how I see the Assault/Rail Rifle is now between the Combat Rifle and Scrambler/Laser Rifle when dealing with armor or shields. Hybrid weapons are meant to do almost equal damage to shields and armor. When a matar tank turret is released, most infantry might just pop like my scout suits do when caught, namely when someone uses a proto gun against it. Tangent: That isn't OP is it? Killing enemy infantry with high damage and ROF weapons with little/no retaliation. Surviving getting jumped because your EHP is higher than their DPS isn't either right? In BF4 it costs no investment to get into a vehicle, all you need is to be first into the driver's seat and you can drive one. Only limiting factor is your skill with the vehicle, that decides if you change the current game or just scenery d+¬cor 5 seconds from spawning. In DUST you MUST invest your time(SP) and isk/AUR to use a tank. (Bar hijacking one) In BF4, you have AIR, Land and Sea vehicles. Each is capable of fighting the other to some degree, I've used AA guns to mow down infantry (which I get a kick out of), see a IFV, hit triangle to zuni rockets and proceed to fight the vehicle. In DUST you have a vehicle called a tank that you can build how you want barring PG/CPU constraints. In BF4, having a good K/D ratio, good score/minute and even winning is largely dependent on player skill. In DUST this can be negated to a degree by how you invest your SP, ISK and build your fits, same for your opponents. In BF4 the map/game mode dictates what vehicles are used and how many, coupled with a respawn timer on vehicles if/when they get blown up. In DUST your are limited to 5 per team at a time, not what you can use. You also are limited in how many you can deploy by your isk/AUR. Run out and you can't use that anymore. There are more I'm sure I glossed over. Only listed what's prevalent in my mind right now. TLDR: Both in BF4 and DUST vehicles can change the direction of the current match. You can either change with the match or remove the match changer and keep it from coming back. AI controlled killstreaks are not a substitute for vehicles either.
Our Deepest Regret L.O.T.I.S. D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 480	Posted - 2014.01.05 22:31:00 - [118] - Quote Alabastor 'TheBlaster' Alcar wrote: ummmmm... blasters kill people its what they are good at to say that they kill peolle too well is dumb, just as dumb as the infantry that shoots at a blaster tank with his anti infantry ar. how about this if you dont have weapons to fight a blaster tank avoid the freakin tank do your best to avoid it and run, cause the blaster is looking for kills and he will get them if you dont pay attention to him. to say that blasters are too effective at what they are intended for is ridiculous its suppost to kill people and thats exactly what it does. ummmmm....Blasters are too effective. We're quite aware that the blaster tanker is "looking for kills." The problem with it is how easily he'll get them. You say: "Avoid the tank and run." To which a seasoned player will respond "They've got four tanks on the field following each other, genius. They're like fat kids following a trail of cookie crumbs."
DeathwindRising ROGUE SPADES 183	Posted - 2014.01.06 01:58:00 - [119] - Quote increase blaster heat build up, decrease blaster cool down rate. keep the damage and rof as is. the blaster stays effective against infantry but it cant sit there and mow down troops for minutes on end. plus, if even one tank shows up, its screwed. twhen we get our other mods back, we can throw on heat sinks to compensate at the risk of not having boost or damage amps, scanners or mobile cru's. blasters are anti infantry turrets. theres actaully a thread about them being too weak against vehicles lol
Meeko Fent State Patriots 1732	Posted - 2014.01.14 18:09:00 - [120] - Quote Pretty Much. 2-3 shoting most infantry, with rate of fire like an AR does let it lay waste to squads, which is a bad thing. It should be able to supress a squad, and slowly kill em off, but having this insanity of just rollin up and killin half h team is broken , as you said. Nice on getting in the bi-weekly updates dude. DUST is a half decent game. Be happy its free.

CLONE117 planetary retaliation organisation ACME Holding Conglomerate 585	Posted - 2014.01.14 22:23:00 - [121] - Quote where is this 2-3 shoting coming from?. im a pretty good shot with my large blaster turret and most of the time it takes 20 or so rounds. id say you use up less ammo using an assault rifle than a large blaster turret. i can kill a heavy faster with an hmg than i can with a large blaster turret. hell at some points ive had to activate my blaster damage mods just to kill some infantry. and still use up alot of rounds so where is this 2-3 shoting coming from as i have yet to see it.
The-Errorist 458	Posted - 2014.01.14 22:41:00 - [122] - Quote CLONE117 wrote: where is this 2-3 shoting coming from?. im a pretty good shot with my large blaster turret and most of the time it takes 20 or so rounds. id say you use up less ammo using an assault rifle than a large blaster turret. i can kill a heavy faster with an hmg than i can with a large blaster turret. hell at some points ive had to activate my blaster damage mods just to kill some infantry. and still use up alot of rounds so where is this 2-3 shoting coming from as i have yet to see it. 20 shots to kill infantry with a turret that does at least 105 damage per shot with rail rifle range and accuracy? Troll detected, ignoring further comments from that user
Kigurosaka Laaksonen DUST University Ivy League 115	Posted - 2014.01.15 01:11:00 - [123] - Quote Could a part of the problem potentially be that there are 2 heavy weapons in the game? What if every race had its showing of heavy weaponry? Which would be anti vehicle? Or could part of the problem be that there are 2 racial tanks missing and 2 classes of racial weaponry missing? I'm just saying, is it possible that, for example, an Amarr Pulse laser tank would put a Blaster tank in its place?
The-Errorist 460	Posted - 2014.01.15 12:02:00 - [124] - Quote One way I think that would be a good way to fix this would be to make large turrets 40% less effective against infantry. This kinda makes sense because small turrets have reduced efficacy against vehicles and installations (go get an LAV and test this to see this fact), but have 100% efficacy against infantry (not counting shield/armor damage profiles). When medium sized turrets come in, they could be 20% less effective against infantry, vehicles, and installations. With that said, it would all be something like this: Small turrets: 100% against infantry/ 60% against vehicles Medium turrets: 80% against infantry/ 80% against vehicles Large turrets: 60% against infantry/ 100% against vehicles This way, it wouldn't nerf their effectiveness against vehicles and still have the best rate of fire and turning speed to kill infantry better than other turrets.
Text Grant Death Firm. Canis Eliminatus Operatives 294	Posted - 2014.01.16 03:52:00 - [125] - Quote The-Errorist wrote: One solution to this problem would be to make large turrets 40% less effective against infantry. This kinda makes sense because small turrets have reduced efficacy against vehicles and installations (go get an LAV and test this to see this fact), but have 100% efficacy against infantry (not counting shield/armor damage profiles). When medium sized turrets come in, they could be 20% less effective against infantry, vehicles, and installations. With that said, it would all be something like this: Small turrets: 100% against infantry/ 60% against vehicles Medium turrets: 80% against infantry/ 80% against vehicles Large turrets: 60% against infantry/ 100% against vehicles This way, it wouldn't nerf their effectiveness against vehicles and still have the best rate of fire and turning speed to kill infantry better than other turrets. We still die in less than one second. How about 70%? About 30 damage per round then. With high rate of fire and long range? Also immune to infantry fire? Sounds perfect to me.
Seeth Mensch Hawkborn Brotherhood IMMORTAL REGIME 125	Posted - 2014.01.16 05:16:00 - [126] - 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. Oh. My. Wow. you really nailed it. I didn't really look at it this way before, but it's true. Heck, I even perpetuate it by playing gunner in a blaster tank a bunch. On the other hand....we do die. Sometimes often. I can't think of a specific trick to make that happen, honestly. Rail tanks and rail turrets are the biggies. But he is a very good tanker from way back, and I'm an ok gunner. We do slaughter infantry when we see them--the ones that elude us usually do so by playing hide-and-seek. Hi! Gosh, I've missed you...with every bullet, plasma shot, rail gun, and missile.
Alena Ventrallis The Neutral Zone 474	Posted - 2014.01.16 05:22:00 - [127] - Quote So you know how the rounds slow down when your about to overheat? (at least it sounds that way when I hear a turret about to overheat when controlled by the ai.) Make that the normal ROF, and buff damage slightly.
Bradric Banewolf D3M3NT3D M1NDZ The Umbra Combine 11	Posted - 2014.01.16 06:20:00 - [128] - Quote Korvin Lomont wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: Wait till there's laser and projectile tanks, you haven't even begun to see the qq. Also a big portion of the 'problem' with tanks is that no one wants to switch off of their assault rifle for any reason ever. I have literally seen 7 people cowering inside a building with uplinks and nanos because 'ahmuhgurd tanks' and none of them when they died would switch to even so much as a mlt forge or swarm. The problem is why should we? When a full clip of Proto swarms with two complex damage mods is not able to bring down a soma? Why should I sacrifice 90% of my Anti Infantry power just to tickle tanks with proto AV?? There is no benefit in doing this the only halfway viable Infantry based counters to tanks are forges (that require a heavy to carry them) or RE's (coupled with AV/Flux nades) where you don't loose your AI power. The PLC is a joke and swarms not woth the risk... I feel your pain as a fellow assault dog, but remember that your squad comes first! Just the kind of player I am. I have a different specialized fit for mutliple problematic situations. Is the enemy dug in at a point of interest? A mass driver with multiple damage mods, flux grenades, and nanohives of any type will clear them out while supplying your comrades with a much needed resupply. Is the enemy tank(s) wrecking your team? A fit with a swarm laucher with damage mods, av grenades, and proximity mines can give your team the breathing room it needs. You may or may not take the tank down, but if it stays around for every volley fired he's a goner. CCP put all types of weapons, gear, and mods in this game for a reason. I have a fitting for multiple situations. No tank, dropship, or lav will just wreak havok the entire match unchallenged on my watch. Some of you fight like the rifle is the only mod on your dropsuit?!? There are more ways to earn wp's, and assist the team than just getting kills. If everyone in your squad had atleast a basic swarm, forge, plasma cannon, or av nades the tank would not be invincible. I drop between 4 and 7 tanks a day on average after 1.7, and I run off twice that number. I sometimes do it solo and sometimes with help from others. The point is no one thing should dominate the field of battle uncontested. Dropping those vehicles cost them way more isk, and they will more than likely stop bringing in 400,000 isk tanks after you drop two of them. Diversify my friends! "Anybody order chaos?"
Mahal Daj Mahal Tactical Enterprises 20	Posted - 2014.02.18 17:05:00 - [129] - Quote I respect Tankers, their role, and their SP sink into the ability to perform their role effectively. What I believe we are seeing is a proliferation of MLT tanks being misrepresented as "OP Tanks" My suggestion: remove the "light weapon damage reduction" from MLT tanks. This means that a group of infantry using small arms can effectively damage and destroy MLT tanks, while more specialized tankers using STD tanks will not be adversely affected. This would be super fun for large groups of infantry, while not substantially changing the effect on even moderately-skilled Tankers using Madrugars and Gunnlogis. It should also be a minor coding change. Thoughts? Boost your squad's points by 40%, learn to use the Squad Wheel! I provide training: 1M isk: 90 Minutes of Basic Command
Alena Ventrallis The Neutral Zone 687	Posted - 2014.02.18 17:36:00 - [130] - Quote Tanks should be the kings of AV. Blasters should be short range AV. The problem now is, if we made them AV turrets instead of AI, tanks would have next to nothing to shoot at. Once MAVs and MTACs are released, I'm for making blasters an AV turret. Best PVE idea I've seen.

Lorhak Gannarsein Science For Death 1713	Posted - 2014.02.18 23:40:00 - [131] - Quote Maybe increase blaster DPS to make it undisputed king of CQC AV the way railgun is at the moment, and give infanty inherent resistance sufficient to lower DPS to about HMG levels? (So assuming a damage buff to 1400DPS, infantry get 50% resists) Considering the appalling hit detection of blasters, I feel like this is a reasonable solution. Forge on for great justice! Defend the meek! Destroy the weak! Q-sync breaches into the rectum of everyone else!
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 7295	Posted - 2014.02.18 23:42:00 - [132] - Quote Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: Maybe increase blaster DPS to make it undisputed king of CQC AV the way railgun is at the moment, and give infanty inherent resistance sufficient to lower DPS to about HMG levels? (So assuming a damage buff to 1400DPS, infantry get 50% resists) Considering the appalling hit detection of blasters, I feel like this is a reasonable solution. Or convert all large blasters to Heavy Plasma Cannon! "Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 9534	Posted - 2014.02.23 20:43:00 - [133] - Quote Fix it! Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 7422	Posted - 2014.02.23 20:51:00 - [134] - Quote Agreed. I'd rather keep my durability and have reduced infantry effectiveness and require skill shots to nail infantry than the current blaster mechanic. Which is why I would request the blaster to become a 18 shot Heavy Plasma cannon. Slower RoF coupled with slow projectile travel time, but increased Alpha damage and some AOE. "Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha
Aerius Corius FACTION WARFARE ARMY FACTION WARFARE ALLIANCE 0	Posted - 2014.02.23 21:08:00 - [135] - Quote pegasis prime wrote: I prefer to run missiles or rails on my gunlogi but most of the time when im on squad my squad leaders want blaster support simply because of its raw killing power, I have seen threads about removing large blasters altogether but I don't think this is the solution , My personal solution would be to change the blasters rate of fire to that of the old compressed blasters as they had quite a slow rate of fire and only slightly higher damage than the satterd, this would make it still viable to get enemy infantry kills while defending your self but would take much more skill to get those kills because of the decreased rate of fire. I also think the slower rate of fire would make the turret feel more tank , i.e. slow firing but powerful cannon . This. Blaster RoF should go down a good deal - maybe even a shot per second. I see the turret types as functioning like so to make each a choice in strategy... Missiles: Medium RoF, Splash Dmg, medium range, medium rotation Blasters: High RoF, Low Damage, Short Range, High Rotation Rails: Low RoF, High DMG, High Range, Low Rotation Projectiles: Medium RoF, Medium Dmg, Medium Range, Medium Rotation Blasters need to be the end all be all for anti-infantry tanks, no doubt, but they could be balanced a little better to not be so damn good at their job. Ambush mode suffers heavily from this. That said, blasters need to be anti-infantry NOT anti-armor, the "low dmg" I list is relative to vehicle dmg. A blaster should still hose you in five shots or less, regardless of suit type. The high rotation and RoF make it effective for up close infantry...like busting up a squad on a capture point. But the rotation, not the RoF, is really why a blaster should be good against infantry and essentially unimportant against vehicles. Missiles need to be a form of medium range artillery against infantry and a decent threat to armor, especially LAV's. Missiles can take multiple infrantry out if used well, but would have trouble up close with a slower rotation. If enemy armor arrives, missiles are more effective than blasters and still have some rotation to deal with an LAV. Rails work fine right now (tanks on hills are a pain, yes, but this is an anti-armor problem not a tank problem). Rails should be slow rotating, huge dmg, slow firing, anti-armor. They should have a relatively small blast radius - making infantry kills very difficult but not impossible at range. Really, rails need to be the anti-armor choice - the slow rotation can track a tank at mid-range, tough to hit an LAV or dropship nearby, and a blaster/missile tank could potentially outmaneuver up close. Rails should have a higher aim though - they should be able to aim around 60 degrees up or so to hit dropships at some distance without going frolicking in the red-line. Projectiles need to be the happy middle of all-around effective, jack of all trades. Decent at anti-armor like missiles, but more pinpoint accurate (a good threat to LAV compared to missiles which take time to arrive at target) and capable of infantry kills at mid-range in the hands of a skilled pilot. Projectiles also should have a higher aim - again they should be able to aim around 60 degrees up or so to hit dropships at some distance without going to hills or red-line. These concepts should apply to small armaments too - LAV's with rails could be a quick solution to a tank that has squadmates pinned in a building. Dropships with blasters can do closer encounters with infantry and better handle that pesky AV dropsuit - or a dropship with projectiles makes a great versatile artillery platform against infantry or vehicles. Food for thought.
Meeko Fent Kirkinen Risk Control Caldari State 1791	Posted - 2014.02.24 00:29:00 - [136] - Quote Note My Opinion on Subject Of Tanks. The major Issue with tanks is that Tanks can both be offensive and defensive at the same time. They can run Hardener and a passive repper in the lows with a Damage mod in the highs, and nothing can be done. Hardeners should only be able to be used when a damage mod is not in effect (or have the Hardener turn off the modifier when turned on, and vice versa), and when shooting the main gun, hardeners should run at 50% of normal resist for when its shooting, and 5 seconds following. That's my thoughts on the topic at least. From one scrub infantry to another. Looking for a Interesting Character Name? Why Not Zoidberg?
Garth Mandra The Southern Legion 339	Posted - 2014.02.24 07:37:00 - [137] - Quote What if infantry weapons did full damage against tanks?
Royalgiedro Nor Clan Combat Logistics 0	Posted - 2014.02.24 08:10:00 - [138] - 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 point they're trying to get across is that people running 60k isk militia soma tanks with militia blasters can eat a hoard or proto infantry in seconds flat with no chance of escape. I personally don't tend to die in my proto suit unless I get killed by a blaster tank, which is normally militia. I then have to respawn call in a Rail tank, kill the soma, then recall. At this point they call in another one. The cycle repeats.
Zack3000 Smith Endless Hatred Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive 13	Posted - 2014.02.24 08:42:00 - [139] - Quote Raise the price on tanks and we shall see who the real tankers are..
Royalgiedro Nor Clan Combat Logistics 0	Posted - 2014.02.24 08:48:00 - [140] - Quote Zack3000 Smith wrote: Raise the price on tanks and we shall see who the real tankers are.. Exactly my stance.

Dravok Silverblood Tight Crew 8	Posted - 2014.02.24 13:11:00 - [141] - Quote Mortar cannon for infantry. just make the plasma cannon an equipment item so every infantry could carry it and pull it out on tanks. LOL
CLONE117 True Pros Forever 689	Posted - 2014.02.24 16:10:00 - [142] - Quote if blaster tanks r so effective at killing infantry. then how do i manage to escape them in my mlt suit all the time?. oh yeah. they're easy to avoid. most ppl that die to them r morons that stand still for the tanker. how r ppl so stupid? even a few tanks ive killed are too stupid to move. i just throw 3 av nades a fire a volley of swarms. plus theres that bug they suffer from where they magically get stuck to an object like a pole. or rock. if ppl would only stop running in a straight line directly from the tank. they would cut the amount of deaths by blaster turret by a large amount.
killertojo42 Sardaukar Merc Guild 19	Posted - 2014.02.24 16:25:00 - [143] - Quote pegasis prime wrote: I prefer to run missiles or rails on my gunlogi but most of the time when im on squad my squad leaders want blaster support simply because of its raw killing power, I have seen threads about removing large blasters altogether but I don't think this is the solution , My personal solution would be to change the blasters rate of fire to that of the old compressed blasters as they had quite a slow rate of fire and only slightly higher damage than the satterd, this would make it still viable to get enemy infantry kills while defending your self but would take much more skill to get those kills because of the decreased rate of fire. I also think the slower rate of fire would make the turret feel more tank , i.e. slow firing but powerful cannon . I'd say make them in the opposite direction, make them extremely less accurate but increase fire rate with less power so it still kills other tanks as fast but acts as a heavy machine gun for deterring large groups but only moderately dangerous to individual troops Also on a side note i also say tanks should be allowed to take damage from rifle fire, we are damn seven foot clones with super weapons, let us do a little damage on tanks so they don't just sit in front of an entire team feeling smuggly invincible, it wouldn't take things out of balance, just make tanks worried about being swarmed by a team When walking on the battlefield i stand alone
Cinder Integ Ancient Exiles. Renegade Alliance 129	Posted - 2014.02.24 17:09:00 - [144] - Quote In response to OP and many other posts on this thread saying that infantry can't deal with tanks. 1) Running around a box. 2) Running around a Rock 3) Running inside a building 4) Running to an altitude under the tank but still close to it... and many more 5) Opening your map to see the giant tanks on the field 6) Using a scanner to see the tank coming 7) Using the sqd feature in the game to communicate, distract and harass with infantry AV 8) Killing the tank with 2-3 Players using AV weapons... Assualt / Breach forge is my favorite combo. 9) Actually using AV grenades which can track vehicles, meaning you can throw around an object and not even go into line of sight 9.5) Use Nanohives and spam AV grenades at tanks. 10) Use Remote explosives and clever placement to insta kill tanks 11) Understand that tanks have weak multiple weak points (in the center of the back, as well as under the tank in rare occasions.) Lastly) This game can be very fast pace, involving quick kills/deaths and walls of clones sprinting to fight eachother. It is not always going to be this way, and don't be frustrated because you are stuck in a silly ambush spawn location and want to just run away. "Slow Down, and Bunker Down." A few simple solutions to frustrations in this game. -Use AV and don't be in a hurry. You might not get a kill, and you might get 4-5 tanks in a short amount of time. Practice and work together with others. -Occasionally play as Logi support, including rep tools. -Use sqauds, and network with other players outside of the match... practice being a slayer, logi repper, AV and other roles. AND PRACTICE COMBINING ROLES WITH OTHER PLAYERS. -Stick together with blueberries and Green Dots. After nearly 2 years of playing Dust using the "lone wolf" mentality: Trying to flank my enemies, I have found new enjoyment with just following blueberries that might not be able to slay like I can, but still do well when givin the support. And lastly for now... Get a mic. Trading Carrots for Isk! Come and Get em!
killertojo42 Sardaukar Merc Guild 20	Posted - 2014.02.24 17:21:00 - [145] - Quote Very true but you missed on your list and my favorite counter for tanks, just jump on them, you'll freak the hell out of the driver and you can hop on his camera and screw up his view a whole lot, i do it all the time and unless he has buddies he quickly leaves the area When walking on the battlefield i stand alone
Xaviah Reaper Nyain San Renegade Alliance 267	Posted - 2014.03.08 15:35:00 - [146] - Quote Our Deepest Regret wrote: 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. .... have you seriously never heard the term "Red Line Rail Tank" before? if you are a dedicated dropship pilot, you are shut down. there is literally 0% chance of you keeping that ship if you dont spot him first .. which you cant, because he sneaks up on the map from the far edge of the dead zone and as soon as his big ass barrel is over the hill, he double shots you within 0.26 seconds. (that is the real amount of time between hits). which if you haven't noticed, will 2 hit any dropship that hasnt activated hardeners. even with hardeners its difficult to evade. and if you activate your hardeners after the first impact (which is literally impossible due to the time frame given), im pretty sure you'd still die because you'd have no shields left for your hardener to work with. my question, is who the hell gave god a sniper rifle? Best game with a Python: 33kills 1 death (1.6) 24kills 1 death (1.7)
Vitsuna Lancaster Ghosts of Dawn General Tso's Alliance 3	Posted - 2014.04.15 20:59:00 - [147] - Quote Korvin Lomont wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: Wait till there's laser and projectile tanks, you haven't even begun to see the qq. Also a big portion of the 'problem' with tanks is that no one wants to switch off of their assault rifle for any reason ever. I have literally seen 7 people cowering inside a building with uplinks and nanos because 'ahmuhgurd tanks' and none of them when they died would switch to even so much as a mlt forge or swarm. The problem is why should we? When a full clip of Proto swarms with two complex damage mods is not able to bring down a soma? Why should I sacrifice 90% of my Anti Infantry power just to tickle tanks with proto AV?? There is no benefit in doing this the only halfway viable Infantry based counters to tanks are forges (that require a heavy to carry them) or RE's (coupled with AV/Flux nades) where you don't loose your AI power. The PLC is a joke and swarms not woth the risk... Also its a joke for Forge gunners with the current Forge glitch with it shooting blanks or for the assault forge to "let go of the trigger or it wont shoot the shot" is bull. Swarms need a boost, maybe a few more shots in a clip and total ammo carried. Plus a little more damage, not a lot. And please! PLEASE! fix the forge guns asap. Or at least make tanks way more expensive to pull out. Like 1 mil for a soma/sica and 2 mil for the others. Sick of seeing somas that out match a proto-swarm 130k isk suit vs a 80k tank???? WTF! Before someone says I am a tank hater. But I love tanks. Just hate all those unskill milita tanks out matching dedicated AV users. I don't want to see a a pre-1.7 of tanks. But starting to find these Milita blasters to be a "cheap" pain in the ass. At least make the soma/sica easy enough for a milita swarm launcher or milita forge to take it out. That should be fair? since it is in the same class? Balance of the milita/basic gear and tanks/lavs.
Odigos Ellinas Mannar Focused Warfare Gallente Federation 83	Posted - 2014.04.15 21:28:00 - [148] - Quote Skill into vehicles they are the main AV in this game!!! Militia railgun HAV's can take out proto HAV's. Squad up organize. Infantry AV's can only deny a area to vehicles and be support for friendly vehicles.
Godin Thekiller OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2009	Posted - 2014.04.15 22:12:00 - [149] - Quote 1: blasters need tweaking yes. nerfing no. DO you want them to be useless. Oh wait, that's your point in this, nm. 2: I'll just leave this here click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
CLONE117 True Pros Forever 764	Posted - 2014.04.16 00:06:00 - [150] - Quote from yesterdays match using/losing my several different tank fits im almost inclined to say av is fine...mainly when looking how fast my hardened gunlogi died to those avers(asides from the bugs)...hell my rep tank didnt last long either...it was the only choice i had in order to reach them whilst they were camping up in their redzone..i was really gunning for their thale though..but i killed their depot in the end..well i guess losing 2-4 tanks is nothing to worry about as ill grind it back as usual. mlt vets are eternal. they shall be the bane to proto scrubs everywhere...

KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 10441	Posted - 2014.04.16 15:49:00 - [151] - Quote bump Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 :: [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.