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)
Scheneighnay McBob Bojo's School of the Trades 3318	Posted - 2013.12.23 20:57:00 - [1] - Quote I've played since there was skirmish 1.0, meaning I've seen the previous "tank 514"; so I just want to say this: Just have fun with it. Last time, I was one of those "not going to stoop to their level" guys. I just stuck in the buildings as a shotgun scout, and avoided the HAV spam altogether. And I regretted it. Up until today, I haven't realistically taken part on one of those huge tank battles that pops up now. We've already made it very clear to CCP that HAVs are currently broken. So while they change that (and I guarantee you they will), just sit back, relax, call in a MLT HAV, and join the chaos. It IS pretty fun We used to have a time machine
Flix Keptick Red Star. EoN. 1760	Posted - 2013.12.23 21:05:00 - [2] - Quote 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) Lack of content makes stuff broken... GÿåTank driverGÿå
Kane Fyea Scions of Athra 2452	Posted - 2013.12.23 21:07:00 - [3] - 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) If the plasma cannon was good then there would be Anti Shield AV
Darken-Sol BIG BAD W0LVES 1019	Posted - 2013.12.23 21:08:00 - [4] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: I've played since there was skirmish 1.0, meaning I've seen the previous "tank 514"; so I just want to say this: Just have fun with it. Last time, I was one of those "not going to stoop to their level" guys. I just stuck in the buildings as a shotgun scout, and avoided the HAV spam altogether. And I regretted it. Up until today, I haven't realistically taken part on one of those huge tank battles that pops up now. We've already made it very clear to CCP that HAVs are currently broken. So while they change that (and I guarantee you they will), just sit back, relax, call in a MLT HAV, and join the chaos. It IS pretty fun Get in on the joke. There was a time we fought good tankers. Now we just fight good tanks.
Valeryy Igunen Gummibaerenbande 514 108	Posted - 2013.12.23 21:10:00 - [5] - 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 http://youtu.be/cJ50Sj58Uhg plasma cannon with flux nades works fine if the tank driver can't aim ;)
Kane Fyea Scions of Athra 2453	Posted - 2013.12.23 21:14:00 - [6] - 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 ;) Wow that tanker couldn't aim for shit lol.
Christiphoros von Poe Condotta Rouvenor Gallente Federation 37	Posted - 2013.12.23 21:18:00 - [7] - Quote I think they are fine as well. I am a little glad they aren't Sagaris's though... Haha. Who knows how beastly they would be. I fought at Caldari Prime Closed Beta Vet
DeathwindRising ROGUE SPADES 155	Posted - 2013.12.23 21:18:00 - [8] - Quote mlt railgun tanks redline sniping can be annoying... but then theyre not hacking or slaughtering troops either. blasters though... decrease the heat cool down and increase overheat duration. in return we need the heat sink modules back. missiles are fine. railguns... well nobody likes getting sniped, but i think there ok. just need to be more careful when theyre on the field and maybe decrease theyre tracking, so the absolutely suck up close. if we get those things done then, blasters will still be great against troops but suck against vehicles and installations. railguns will still be great at long range vehicle combat, but will suck against troops and vehicles up close. missiles are fine. just waiting for medium launchers now. PS. if small missiles blast radius is 2.5m and large missiles are 1.5, will mediums be 2m? will the launchers have 10 missiles per clip? and medium rof? i might like those :D
Harpyja DUST University Ivy League 951	Posted - 2013.12.23 21:25:00 - [9] - Quote 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. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
taxi bastard Minor Trueblood 82	Posted - 2013.12.23 21:29:00 - [10] - Quote IMO at the least remove the large blaster turret. if you want to go tank vs tank then you can do it solo. for infantry aswell then you need 2 people.

Scheneighnay McBob Bojo's School of the Trades 3321	Posted - 2013.12.23 21:57:00 - [11] - Quote Btw, too the "real" tankers- my Soma destroyed a madrugar. I new I wouldn't be able to get away, so I just rammed them with a fuel injector active. Ended up flipping them, and surviving. We used to have a time machine
Flix Keptick Red Star. EoN. 1772	Posted - 2013.12.23 22:18:00 - [12] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Btw, to the "real" tankers- my Soma destroyed a madrugar. I knew I wouldn't be able to get away, so I just rammed them with a fuel injector active. Ended up flipping them, and surviving. What is your point? I have destroyed dozens of mlt tanks with my gunnlogi. Lack of content makes stuff broken... GÿåTank driverGÿå
Lynn Beck Granite Mercenary Division Top Men. 395	Posted - 2013.12.23 22:25:00 - [13] - Quote 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. Under 28db Officially nerfproof (predicting CR nerf February '14) I have a God, His name is Dakka.
Luk Manag of Terror TRE GAFFEL 257	Posted - 2013.12.23 22:28:00 - [14] - Quote 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. There will be bullets. ACR+SMG
Flix Keptick Red Star. EoN. 1775	Posted - 2013.12.23 22:34:00 - [15] - 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 True, plasma cannon is a joke... Lack of content makes stuff broken... GÿåTank driverGÿå
Scheneighnay McBob Bojo's School of the Trades 3323	Posted - 2013.12.23 23:35:00 - [16] - Quote 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. Well, when any piece of the system isn't working, it's broken. AV and HAVs are part of the same system We used to have a time machine
DeathwindRising ROGUE SPADES 158	Posted - 2013.12.24 07:01:00 - [17] - Quote 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....
Phazoid The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 144	Posted - 2013.12.24 07:13:00 - [18] - Quote now the only thing i find op on tanks is the numbers, there are many on the battlefield, and the maps makes targeting infantry easy, thats all i have against tanks Dragons don't have friends. The nearest we can get to the idea is an enemy who is still alive.
Scheneighnay McBob Bojo's School of the Trades 3328	Posted - 2013.12.24 16:09:00 - [19] - Quote Phazoid wrote: now the only thing i find op on tanks is the numbers, there are many on the battlefield, and the maps makes targeting infantry easy, thats all i have against tanks Now the only find I find OP on tanks are hardeners. The rest is just AV stupidity- I use a Soma with no hardeners whatsoever- it has a BPO heavy rep, a BPO light rep, a basic fuel injector, mCRU, and 2 mlt 20gj blasters (blueberries are more helpful than you would think) In that fit, I survived an orbital and several swarm clips. For the orbital, I just stayed right where I was- sitting under pipes. I went down to 400 armor, but I still survived. For the swarms, I just moved behind a pillar, and watched while the AVers fired volley after volley at me, even though everything was hitting the pillar and not me. The stacking penalty for active modules needs to be much harsher, and AVers need some way to get WP without destroying a vehicle- they're VERY effective area-denial, after all. We used to have a time machine
CommanderBolt ACME SPECIAL FORCES 487	Posted - 2013.12.24 16:27:00 - [20] - 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 ;) Wow what a ham-fisted battle. I suppose you have a reason to be sloppy with the plasma cannon but that shield tank driver..... freshie!

Jason Pearson 3627	Posted - 2013.12.24 16:35:00 - [21] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: blasters are shield biased, but railgun are also shield biased.... False, Railguns deal 110% to armor, 90% to shields. King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire. Buffing or Debuffing Vehicles or AV will never fix anything.
pegasis prime BIG BAD W0LVES 1512	Posted - 2013.12.24 16:40:00 - [22] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Phazoid wrote: now the only thing i find op on tanks is the numbers, there are many on the battlefield, and the maps makes targeting infantry easy, thats all i have against tanks Now the only find I find OP on tanks are hardeners. The rest is just AV stupidity- I use a Soma with no hardeners whatsoever- it has a BPO heavy rep, a BPO light rep, a basic fuel injector, mCRU, and 2 mlt 20gj blasters (blueberries are more helpful than you would think) In that fit, I survived an orbital and several swarm clips. For the orbital, I just stayed right where I was- sitting under pipes. I went down to 400 armor, but I still survived. For the swarms, I just moved behind a pillar, and watched while the AVers fired volley after volley at me, even though everything was hitting the pillar and not me. The stacking penalty for active modules needs to be much harsher, and AVers need some way to get WP without destroying a vehicle- they're VERY effective area-denial, after all. im sure CCP nullabor said something in a thread that inferred that it would be a simple thing to implement wp for inflicting damage to vehicles, he also mentioned that he would bring it to the attention to the brass and see if it was hot fixable as now we have a wp hard cap per time unit it would be less farmable Its gone from suck .....to blow level 1 forum warrior
Scheneighnay McBob Bojo's School of the Trades 3331	Posted - 2013.12.24 16:59:00 - [23] - 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. Meanwhile, projectiles deal 110% to armor 95% to shields, which is why minmatar are statistically the best. Totally called that the CBR would be the best AR. We used to have a time machine
Darken-Sol BIG BAD W0LVES 1030	Posted - 2013.12.24 17:03:00 - [24] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Jason Pearson wrote: DeathwindRising wrote: blasters are shield biased, but railgun are also shield biased.... False, Railguns deal 110% to armor, 90% to shields. Meanwhile, projectiles deal 110% to armor 95% to shields, which is why minmatar are statistically the best. Totally called that the CBR would be the best AR. the dovolle is still by far the best AR. They rip shitup all day long. There was a time we fought good tankers. Now we just fight good tanks.
Zekain K Expert Intervention Caldari State 903	Posted - 2013.12.24 17:30:00 - [25] - Quote 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 **. CALDARI not so MASTER RACE** Forum Warrior Level: 10
Jason Pearson 3628	Posted - 2013.12.24 17:41:00 - [26] - Quote 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 ****. So hostile. King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire. Buffing or Debuffing Vehicles or AV will never fix anything.
Vrain Matari ZionTCD Public Disorder. 1395	Posted - 2013.12.24 17:44:00 - [27] - 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) This is a good point. We kinda need to wait and see. Praying to all the gods that CCP is smart enough to have prepared those items ahead of time for release with 1.8 - it's the only thing that makes sense. I support SP rollover.
Vrain Matari ZionTCD Public Disorder. 1395	Posted - 2013.12.24 17:46:00 - [28] - Quote 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 foll, dunnit'? I support SP rollover.
Scheneighnay McBob Bojo's School of the Trades 3332	Posted - 2013.12.24 19:06:00 - [29] - Quote 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 ****. I'm not sure sure if the attackers in skirmish 1.0 had one (I was literally always an attacker for some odd reason), and after that, the redline was either MUCH farther back or nonexistent. I remember people just sitting under the MCC with HMGs and tanks. We used to have a time machine
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 1569	Posted - 2013.12.24 19:23:00 - [30] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: I've played since there was skirmish 1.0, meaning I've seen the previous "tank 514"; so I just want to say this: Just have fun with it. Last time, I was one of those "not going to stoop to their level" guys. I just stuck in the buildings as a shotgun scout, and avoided the HAV spam altogether. And I regretted it. Up until today, I haven't realistically taken part on one of those huge tank battles that pops up now. We've already made it very clear to CCP that HAVs are currently broken. So while they change that (and I guarantee you they will), just sit back, relax, call in a MLT HAV, and join the chaos. It IS pretty fun A reasonable response!! faints 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 19:27:00 - [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]

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.