DUST Search - Vet's word on HAVs

All Channels

General Discussions

Vet's word on HAVs

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 1569	Posted - 2013.12.24 19:27:00 - [31] - Quote Kane Fyea wrote: Flix Keptick wrote: I must admit, destroying 2-4 tanks per game is satisfying. PS: lack of content make tanks "broken" as you would put it (webifiers, shield AV and stuff like that) If the plasma cannon was good then there would be Anti Shield AV I was 2-shot in my Madrugar by a permanent redline rail sniper real early this morning, sometime before downtime. I was a little upset about the quick loss, but I did it to him first, and I at least know I can handle my tank pretty well outside the redline, while that sorry punk has to sit behind his. 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. 1569	Posted - 2013.12.24 19:29:00 - [32] - Quote Valeryy Igunen wrote: Kane Fyea wrote: Flix Keptick wrote: I must admit, destroying 2-4 tanks per game is satisfying. PS: lack of content make tanks "broken" as you would put it (webifiers, shield AV and stuff like that) If the plasma cannon was good then there would be Anti Shield AV http://youtu.be/cJ50Sj58Uhg plasma cannon with flux nades works fine if the tank driver can't aim ;) Oh wow, congratulations, you beat someone that has no clue how to aim while they're using all MLT. How would you fare against me? 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. 1569	Posted - 2013.12.24 19:30:00 - [33] - Quote Kane Fyea wrote: Valeryy Igunen wrote: Kane Fyea wrote: Flix Keptick wrote: I must admit, destroying 2-4 tanks per game is satisfying. PS: lack of content make tanks "broken" as you would put it (webifiers, shield AV and stuff like that) If the plasma cannon was good then there would be Anti Shield AV http://youtu.be/cJ50Sj58Uhg plasma cannon with flux nades works fine if the tank driver can't aim ;) Wow that tanker couldn't aim for shit lol. That person isn't a "tanker." 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. 1569	Posted - 2013.12.24 19:31:00 - [34] - Quote Jason Pearson wrote: DeathwindRising wrote: blasters are shield biased, but railgun are also shield biased.... False, Railguns deal 110% to armor, 90% to shields. I could much more easily survive a blaster in my Gunnlogi than a railgun. Maybe CCP has something mixed up? Infantry cries for tank changes, and they don't like them. Tell them to use vehicles, they complain, and use cars anyway
Rusty Shallows 585	Posted - 2013.12.24 19:43:00 - [35] - Quote Harpyja wrote: More FOTMers in militia HAVs? Please no. Sure, I get more kills, but the infantry will QQ harder and will get tanks nerfed for EVERYONE. It's only the militia HAVs that need nerfing. They get too much power for 0 SP. Militia HAVs are the only thing keeping Std HAVs from turning into Win Buttons again. That gap was the biggest excuse for the massive infantry Nerfs. Besides any Militia Nerfs will only end chain reacting to other vehicles as most of the player base starts calling BS. The Uprising 1.0 Nerfs didn't occur in a vacuum. It's just a crying shame that all vehicles took a hit for the sins of a few. MCC Lounge Lizard Forums > Game Fix the game CCP
Lynn Beck Granite Mercenary Division Top Men. 413	Posted - 2013.12.24 21:01:00 - [36] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: Lynn Beck wrote: We need to stop referring to the blaster as 'anti infantry only' It's the only gallente turret. The rail has splash damage, so to enforce it's 'anti tank' role we should remove ALL splash from rails? Small rails have splash as well, let's nerf it. /sarcasm end We need to stop lookin at this game like a bunch of dicklords and deeming anything that isn't instakillable as Op. Blasters are the CQC shield biased DPS machine. Rails are your long distance 'sniper' weapons, that are seriously -disadvantaged- in CQC, but doesn't mean you can't DIRECT HIT a few infantry, or use your flaylock level splash to pester people in cover. blasters are shield biased, but railgun are also shield biased.... Incorrect, rails are hybrid rail, which is -10% shield, +10 armor Under 28db Officially nerfproof (predicting CR nerf February '14) I have a God, His name is Dakka.
Luk Manag of Terror TRE GAFFEL 263	Posted - 2013.12.24 21:39:00 - [37] - Quote Vrain Matari wrote: Zekain K wrote: Luk Manag wrote: I wouldn't say they're broken. I remember when we had no redline to speak of, and our missle tanks would just camp under the enemy MCC and shoot guys as they jumped out. We could then pop up over the hill and snipe guys across the map with that same missile turret - it was OP. I think AV needs a bit of a buff - that's all it will take to thin the tank herd. We have always had a red line you dumb ****. But he's exactly right in his description. Kinda makes you look like a fool, dunnit'? Indeed. There were match types that lacked a redline. Those MCCs could move in Skirmish 1.0, and we did camp the MCC. There was also a 3 point map where the MCC was forward of the red line, over a large hill (we camped it as well). Directly down the hill was a point on a little hill, and off to the left there was a big hill and a type of tall building with a controll point (now that building has an odd flatspace used by snipers) and bland 'city' buildings below. On that hill we'd call in LAVs and snipe stuff all across the map. I miss that map. There will be bullets. ACR+SMG
Scheneighnay McBob Bojo's School of the Trades 3340	Posted - 2013.12.25 00:27:00 - [38] - Quote Luk Manag wrote: Vrain Matari wrote: Zekain K wrote: Luk Manag wrote: I wouldn't say they're broken. I remember when we had no redline to speak of, and our missle tanks would just camp under the enemy MCC and shoot guys as they jumped out. We could then pop up over the hill and snipe guys across the map with that same missile turret - it was OP. I think AV needs a bit of a buff - that's all it will take to thin the tank herd. We have always had a red line you dumb ****. But he's exactly right in his description. Kinda makes you look like a fool, dunnit'? Indeed. There were match types that lacked a redline. Those MCCs could move in Skirmish 1.0, and we did camp the MCC. There was also a 3 point map where the MCC was forward of the red line, over a large hill (we camped it as well). Directly down the hill was a point on a little hill, and off to the left there was a big hill and a type of tall building with a controll point (now that building has an odd flatspace used by snipers) and bland 'city' buildings below. On that hill we'd call in LAVs and snipe stuff all across the map. I miss that map. You don't really have to describe the map. We still have it- they just made the mountain somehow disappear, moved the southern MCC back, changed a tower to a medium/small(?) socket, moved C, and added a medium/large socket on top of B http://web.ccpgamescdn.com/newssystem/media/64656/1/ManusPeak_skirmish.jpg We used to have a time machine
Bethhy Ancient Exiles. Renegade Alliance 558	Posted - 2013.12.25 00:31:00 - [39] - Quote Flix Keptick wrote: I must admit, destroying 2-4 tanks per game is satisfying. PS: lack of content make tanks "broken" as you would put it (webifiers, shield AV and stuff like that) Yes because CCP is balancing the game based on future stuff that isn't even in the code. FML these forums...
Lorhak Gannarsein 874	Posted - 2013.12.25 00:57:00 - [40] - Quote Why do people keep saying railguns are anti-armour? My ingame read outs say bonus to shields. I spend most of my time these days dealing 89% to Somas. PRO tanker and proud. Lentarr Legionary.

Scheneighnay McBob Bojo's School of the Trades 3343	Posted - 2013.12.25 02:08:00 - [41] - Quote Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: Why do people keep saying railguns are anti-armour? My ingame read outs say bonus to shields. I spend most of my time these days dealing 89% to Somas. Everything I've seen, and the actual percentages I've gotten say that they deal 90% to shields and 110% to armor. As far as dealing 89% to Somas, that's just your initial reading because they still have shields on top of their armor. We used to have a time machine
Dj grammer Red Star. EoN. 69	Posted - 2013.12.25 03:02:00 - [42] - Quote Harpyja wrote: More FOTMers in militia HAVs? Please no. Sure, I get more kills, but the infantry will QQ harder and will get tanks nerfed for EVERYONE. It's only the militia HAVs that need nerfing. They get too much power for 0 SP. Give the man a prize. That's is the main reason people are QQ'ing in the first place. It was never the Madruger or Gunnlogi or how powerful they were. Even before 1.7 they were still hard to take down with AV weapons. There are two key problems Harpyja pointed out maybe even more. 1.) Militia Variant Tanks have massive power with no skill point investment. You can make a Soma better than a Madruger with little to nothing dumped into skilling vehicles. 2.) Running Militia Tanks have High rewards at low risk. This seems familiar (Tactical Ar 514, Flaylock 514, CalLogi 514, and etc. I don't know all of them and I just made up a few). You can run these powerful Militia tanks at about as much you would spend on a full dropsuit not even prototype. Knowing that, people can run these tanks get massive kills and do not care if they lose their tank. That brings me to number 3.) Low ISK cost = SPAMMATUDE!!!! With low ISK cost around a full dropsuit that could even be or for sure way less than a full prototype suit, people are not afraid to lose these Militia Tanks. There are some matches where I have been in a game and will see 3-5 enemy tanks on the field. 5 times out of 10, that team will win. There is the other 5 where they will not. The point is, players are making the Militia tanks turn into the auto win button. This especially in any domination or ambush game. To AV players: We need to understand that sometimes that one weapon or person is the absolute one answer. Sometimes we do need to team up with each other and other tankers to take out the enemy tanks. Sometime we are good by ourselves. Sometimes we need to be creative and sneaky to take down tanks but know that THE AV NADES ARE NOT THE ABSOLUTE ANSWER TO EVERYTHING. You will see how when I mention the tankers. To Tankers: I understand that one person should not blow up a tank. However there are times where you guys need to understand that tanks should not be the absolute answer. To BOTH: Best way I can put this is pre 1.7 Lai Dai AV or any other AV weapon and for the sake of argument have versus all tiers of tanks (MILITIA, STD, ADV, and PRO. in other words, pretend that we had all the tiers). That AV should be able to 1 or 2 shot a militia tank since it is the weakest, 3-4 shot a standard, 4-6 an advance meaning they would need a nanohive and some help, and finally 6 or greater a proto meaning that person is going to need all the help they could get. This is not accounting the modules or driving skills.
lee corwood Knights Of Ender Public Disorder. 178	Posted - 2013.12.25 07:50:00 - [43] - Quote Kane Fyea wrote: Valeryy Igunen wrote: Kane Fyea wrote: Flix Keptick wrote: I must admit, destroying 2-4 tanks per game is satisfying. PS: lack of content make tanks "broken" as you would put it (webifiers, shield AV and stuff like that) If the plasma cannon was good then there would be Anti Shield AV http://youtu.be/cJ50Sj58Uhg plasma cannon with flux nades works fine if the tank driver can't aim ;) Wow that tanker couldn't aim for shit lol. Not only can he not shoot, it seems he also forgot that running you over is a completely viable option. That is the worst tank shooter I've ever seen. ...besides me. Minmatar Logisis \| Heavy lover. Come get some badass Band-Aids from this chick
Denn Maell PIanet Express 17	Posted - 2013.12.25 17:06:00 - [44] - Quote I feel that the main issue I have with tanks and their "OPness" was over their initial speed. I feel that even with the AV nerd, it shouldn't be impossible to wreck a tank IF you had a group of infantry working together with AV. The problem I ran into is that when I had that squad work and we actually threatened said tanks, they always just sped up and got away to lick their wounds. Rumor has it the speed was a glitch (GÇªokay, whateverGÇª) but its been a few weeks, now. If the speed were corrected I feel that coordinated squads can break a tank. If we had webifier equipment then some fun ambush opportunities would arise. My main recommendation for AV strategies now has to be Laser OB, or other vehicles. Which is depressing considering that means all other options require recklessness and luck to pull off. (RE Scouts, god bless you but you are crazy!)
Scheneighnay McBob Bojo's School of the Trades 3347	Posted - 2013.12.26 00:31:00 - [45] - Quote Denn Maell wrote: I feel that the main issue I have with tanks and their "OPness" was over their initial speed. I feel that even with the AV nerd, it shouldn't be impossible to wreck a tank IF you had a group of infantry working together with AV. The problem I ran into is that when I had that squad work and we actually threatened said tanks, they always just sped up and got away to lick their wounds. Rumor has it the speed was a glitch (GÇªokay, whateverGÇª) but its been a few weeks, now. If the speed were corrected I feel that coordinated squads can break a tank. If we had webifier equipment then some fun ambush opportunities would arise. My main recommendation for AV strategies now has to be Laser OB, or other vehicles. Which is depressing considering that means all other options require recklessness and luck to pull off. (RE Scouts, god bless you but you are crazy!) The acceleration was corrected (pretty sure the speed was always like that) However, you'll still get ****** over by fuel injectors. We used to have a time machine
FAKIR REDETTa 0uter.Heaven 45	Posted - 2013.12.26 01:34:00 - [46] - Quote Kane Fyea wrote: Valeryy Igunen wrote: Kane Fyea wrote: Flix Keptick wrote: I must admit, destroying 2-4 tanks per game is satisfying. PS: lack of content make tanks "broken" as you would put it (webifiers, shield AV and stuff like that) If the plasma cannon was good then there would be Anti Shield AV http://youtu.be/cJ50Sj58Uhg plasma cannon with flux nades works fine if the tank driver can't aim ;) Wow that tanker couldn't aim for shit lol. i got balls of steel
DUST Fiend OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 9361	Posted - 2013.12.26 02:06:00 - [47] - Quote Diabetes 514 YouTube Videos Incubus pilot, any ISK donated is used to purchase new ships
Ryme Intrinseca 515	Posted - 2013.12.26 02:39:00 - [48] - Quote Denn Maell wrote: I feel that the main issue I have with tanks and their "OPness" was over their initial speed. I feel that even with the AV nerd, it shouldn't be impossible to wreck a tank IF you had a group of infantry working together with AV. The problem I ran into is that when I had that squad work and we actually threatened said tanks, they always just sped up and got away to lick their wounds. Rumor has it the speed was a glitch (GÇªokay, whateverGÇª) but its been a few weeks, now. If the speed were corrected I feel that coordinated squads can break a tank. If we had webifier equipment then some fun ambush opportunities would arise. My main recommendation for AV strategies now has to be Laser OB, or other vehicles. Which is depressing considering that means all other options require recklessness and luck to pull off. (RE Scouts, god bless you but you are crazy!) It's pretty crazy really. Has there ever been another patch that made a whole role (AV) obsolete? The most effective anti-tank tactics involve REs and rail tanks, neither of which involve the designated AV weapons that AVers have sunk millions of SP into. I have 28mil SP and plenty of other roles I can play. But it must be devastating for lower SP players who have specialized in a role, which is what everyone always told them to do, but then find there's no place for it anymore.
Scheneighnay McBob Bojo's School of the Trades 3347	Posted - 2013.12.26 03:18:00 - [49] - Quote Ryme Intrinseca wrote: Denn Maell wrote: I feel that the main issue I have with tanks and their "OPness" was over their initial speed. I feel that even with the AV nerd, it shouldn't be impossible to wreck a tank IF you had a group of infantry working together with AV. The problem I ran into is that when I had that squad work and we actually threatened said tanks, they always just sped up and got away to lick their wounds. Rumor has it the speed was a glitch (GÇªokay, whateverGÇª) but its been a few weeks, now. If the speed were corrected I feel that coordinated squads can break a tank. If we had webifier equipment then some fun ambush opportunities would arise. My main recommendation for AV strategies now has to be Laser OB, or other vehicles. Which is depressing considering that means all other options require recklessness and luck to pull off. (RE Scouts, god bless you but you are crazy!) It's pretty crazy really. Has there ever been another patch that made a whole role (AV) obsolete? The most effective anti-tank tactics involve REs and rail tanks, neither of which involve the designated AV weapons that AVers have sunk millions of SP into. I have 28mil SP and plenty of other roles I can play. But it must be devastating for lower SP players who have specialized in a role, which is what everyone always told them to do, but then find there's no place for it anymore. Yes. The build before codex (I wanna say replication, but I have no clue) made AV even more obsolete than it is now. The HAV buff was bigger, as was the AV nerf. We used to have a time machine
Ryme Intrinseca The Rainbow Effect 526	Posted - 2013.12.26 12:42:00 - [50] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Ryme Intrinseca wrote: Denn Maell wrote: I feel that the main issue I have with tanks and their "OPness" was over their initial speed. I feel that even with the AV nerd, it shouldn't be impossible to wreck a tank IF you had a group of infantry working together with AV. The problem I ran into is that when I had that squad work and we actually threatened said tanks, they always just sped up and got away to lick their wounds. Rumor has it the speed was a glitch (GÇªokay, whateverGÇª) but its been a few weeks, now. If the speed were corrected I feel that coordinated squads can break a tank. If we had webifier equipment then some fun ambush opportunities would arise. My main recommendation for AV strategies now has to be Laser OB, or other vehicles. Which is depressing considering that means all other options require recklessness and luck to pull off. (RE Scouts, god bless you but you are crazy!) It's pretty crazy really. Has there ever been another patch that made a whole role (AV) obsolete? The most effective anti-tank tactics involve REs and rail tanks, neither of which involve the designated AV weapons that AVers have sunk millions of SP into. I have 28mil SP and plenty of other roles I can play. But it must be devastating for lower SP players who have specialized in a role, which is what everyone always told them to do, but then find there's no place for it anymore. Yes. The build before codex (I wanna say replication, but I have no clue) made AV even more obsolete than it is now. The HAV buff was bigger, as was the AV nerf. I only came in at start of open beta, so thanks for info.



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