DUST Search - Remote explosives should be buffed to 3000 damage

All Channels

General Discussions

Remote explosives should be buffed to 3000 damage

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Cat Merc Ahrendee Mercenaries EoN. 5087	Posted - 2013.12.27 12:23:00 - [1] - Quote Instant fix to tanker problem Shield regeneration bonus for Gallente Assault is about as useful as Sharpshooter for Nova Knives. Tuna > Tacos
LT SHANKS Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 1237	Posted - 2013.12.27 12:25:00 - [2] - Quote Proximity explosives should be buffed to 3000 damage instead.
fragmentedhackslash FREE AGENTS LP 42	Posted - 2013.12.27 12:53:00 - [3] - Quote LT SHANKS wrote: Proximity explosives should be buffed to 3000 damage instead. Both. Pain is just weakness leaving your body. Every day is a holiday. Every meal is a feast.
Alena Ventrallis The Neutral Zone 377	Posted - 2013.12.27 12:59:00 - [4] - Quote Breach Remote Explosives. 3500 damage, 0.5m radius.
Yoma Carrim Situation Normal all fraked up 202	Posted - 2013.12.27 12:59:00 - [5] - Quote How about Basic REs stay as they are ADV- Buft to 2250 Proto can be 3000 k? When you turn a corner and find the entire enemy team.Oh Heck Logi, Tanker, Heavy
Smooth Assassin Stardust incorporation 551	Posted - 2013.12.27 13:19:00 - [6] - Quote Yoma Carrim wrote: How about Basic REs stay as they are ADV- Buft to 2250 Proto can be 3000 k? Too true. *Assassination is my thing.*
Protocake JR Royal Uhlans Amarr Empire 1204	Posted - 2013.12.27 13:27:00 - [7] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: Breach Remote Explosives. 3500 damage, 0.5m radius. This. Maybe not these exact numbers, but it would be nice to have anti-vehicle/installation REs as well as the anti-infantry RE's. The PC and SL should fit into the Sidearm slot so it's accessible and practical to carry one. AV spam vs V spam
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2038	Posted - 2013.12.27 13:42:00 - [8] - Quote More like an infantry IQ buff is needed Intelligence is OP
Leonid Tybalt DIOS EX. General Tso's Alliance 33	Posted - 2013.12.27 13:50:00 - [9] - Quote Cat Merc wrote: Instant fix to tanker problem What "tanker problem"? There is no tanker problem. Only a bad infantry player problem.
Thin Decays Black Phoenix Mercenaries 4	Posted - 2013.12.27 14:19:00 - [10] - Quote If RE's and PE's get buffed then say bye to tanks because whose going to use them if they get instantly poped by REs and say good bye to squad and teams in dust. We are not Chuck Norris or Rambo. You want to win at New Eden get ya ass a squad and have some communications and organised attack on tanks. If you believe I am wrong I believe you need to get back to COD or Battlefield because they are solo PVP games and all about K/D waving.

Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 7165	Posted - 2013.12.27 14:23:00 - [11] - Quote Leonid Tybalt wrote: Cat Merc wrote: Instant fix to tanker problem What "tanker problem"? There is no tanker problem. Only a bad infantry player problem. Exactly! Anyone playing infantry is doing it horribly, horribly wrong. If you're not in a tank at this point, you're an idiot. Level 6 Forum Warrior Lenin of the glorious armoured revolution Gallente FW - 'Turalyon'
Sinboto Simmons SVER True Blood Public Disorder. 3505	Posted - 2013.12.27 14:23:00 - [12] - Quote Demolition speced explosives definitely need a buff of some kind to contend with these new tanks, for the PMs it's long overdue, armor destruction is part of it's perilous after all. Sinboto - The True Blood Minja Forum Warrior level 3 STB-Infantry (Demolition)
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 1579	Posted - 2013.12.27 18:58:00 - [13] - Quote Cat Merc wrote: Instant fix to tanker problem You really do need giant crutches. Infantry cries for tank changes, and they don't like them. Tell them to use vehicles, they complain, and use cars anyway
Tectonic Fusion 863	Posted - 2013.12.27 19:21:00 - [14] - Quote Thin Decays wrote: If RE's and PE's get buffed then say bye to tanks because whose going to use them if they get instantly poped by REs and say good bye to squad and teams in dust. We are not Chuck Norris or Rambo. You want to win at New Eden get ya ass a squad and have some communications and organised attack on tanks. If you believe I am wrong I believe you need to get back to COD or Battlefield because they are solo PVP games and all about K/D waving. Do you know how flipping impossible it is to kill a moving tank whilst being scanned is? It shouldn't take 3 REs to kill one tank... Solo Player Squad status: Locked
Vermaak Doe SVER True Blood Public Disorder. 1095	Posted - 2013.12.27 19:24:00 - [15] - Quote Sinboto Simmons wrote: Demolition speced explosives definitely need a buff of some kind to contend with these new tanks, for the PMs it's long overdue, armor destruction is part of it's perilous after all. This, but REs are fine the way they are. "Always fight dirty, the victor writes history"
Llast 326 An Arkhos 1007	Posted - 2013.12.27 19:29:00 - [16] - Quote Vermaak Doe wrote: Sinboto Simmons wrote: Demolition speced explosives definitely need a buff of some kind to contend with these new tanks, for the PMs it's long overdue, armor destruction is part of it's perilous after all. This, but REs are fine the way they are. No, there needs to be a damage buff. Note that this would matter little against infantry, as they pretty much die to an RE (some tanked out heavies can take an RE) the difference would be in taking out Tanks, LAVs and rarely Dropships. KRRROOOOOOM
Cat Merc Ahrendee Mercenaries EoN. 5108	Posted - 2013.12.27 19:31:00 - [17] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Cat Merc wrote: Instant fix to tanker problem You really do need giant crutches. Giant crutch to beat a giant crutch, seems about right Shield regeneration bonus for Gallente Assault is about as useful as Sharpshooter for Nova Knives. Tuna > Tacos
ratamaq doc Edge Regiment 298	Posted - 2013.12.27 19:35:00 - [18] - Quote I think there should be a spot on a take you can place a single RE that would blow the driver out of the top about 100 meters up. I don't think it should kill them though, but it should destroy her inertia dampener. YouTube 30D Recruiting
Bat Cow Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2013.12.27 19:38:00 - [19] - Quote How about we send tankers a curve ball? Scrambler pistols should do 3000 dmg instead. Moo.
Llast 326 An Arkhos 1007	Posted - 2013.12.27 19:41:00 - [20] - Quote Bat Cow wrote: How about we send tankers a curve ball? Scrambler pistols should do 3000 dmg instead. make it Flaylock and I am in KRRROOOOOOM

BobThe 844-1 CakeMan Murder Cakes Of Doom 1361	Posted - 2013.12.27 19:50:00 - [21] - Quote well if u make proxy mines render properly then maybe. as it is now i have to stand still and look at the same spot for like 10 seconds for it to render. ran over like 3 sets of invisible ones and died because they didn't render. well first time i was just not looking but other times i was. yolo i even had me scanner on which doesn't pick them up BTW. :( Main - BobThe843CakeMan Ringing for PC for a price, msg for details. Prices are based on who ur facing and how i feel.
Galvan Nized Deep Space Republic 457	Posted - 2013.12.27 19:54:00 - [22] - Quote Tectonic Fusion wrote: Thin Decays wrote: If RE's and PE's get buffed then say bye to tanks because whose going to use them if they get instantly poped by REs and say good bye to squad and teams in dust. We are not Chuck Norris or Rambo. You want to win at New Eden get ya ass a squad and have some communications and organised attack on tanks. If you believe I am wrong I believe you need to get back to COD or Battlefield because they are solo PVP games and all about K/D waving. Do you know how flipping impossible it is to kill a moving tank whilst being scanned is? It shouldn't take 3 REs to kill one tank... This. How would tanks be instantly killed? REs don't have 100m range, you literally have to be on top of a tank to place them. It's extremely hard to place them even if the tank doesn't notice you, if the tank moves even slightly there's a good chance the remote will fall off before it sticks. Proxies are completely stationary, tanks just have to be on the lookout. Throw in some infantry support and proxies are worthless. 3000 May be a tad extreme, especially for proxies (assuming they get the bottom bonus), but a damage buff doesn't seem too terrible.
Vermaak Doe SVER True Blood Public Disorder. 1095	Posted - 2013.12.27 20:09:00 - [23] - Quote Llast 326 wrote: Vermaak Doe wrote: Sinboto Simmons wrote: Demolition speced explosives definitely need a buff of some kind to contend with these new tanks, for the PMs it's long overdue, armor destruction is part of it's perilous after all. This, but REs are fine the way they are. No, there needs to be a damage buff. Note that this would matter little against infantry, as they pretty much die to an RE (some tanked out heavies can take an RE) the difference would be in taking out Tanks, LAVs and rarely Dropships. No they don't need to be buffed to a point where not even the toughest dropsuit can't withstand a single RE. Obligatory L2 place more mines at a single place. "Always fight dirty, the victor writes history"
Jacques Cayton II Providence Guard Templis CALSF 358	Posted - 2013.12.27 20:13:00 - [24] - Quote No We fight for the future of the State not our personal goals
Alena Ventrallis The Neutral Zone 388	Posted - 2013.12.27 20:55:00 - [25] - Quote BobThe 844-1 CakeMan wrote: ran over like 3 sets of invisible ones and died because they didn't render. That's the point. They don't know they are there until its too late.
Ghost Kaisar Titans of Phoenix 1374	Posted - 2013.12.27 21:01:00 - [26] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Cat Merc wrote: Instant fix to tanker problem You really do need giant crutches. Swarms are crap. I haven't skilled into forges. RE's work great, but good tankers never stand still, and they move faster than my scout. Only option right now is to pull out a double damage modded sica, and if you pull one out too late in the game, enemy tanks won't let it hit the ground. I just want a balanced AV/HAV world. One where AV and Tanks help eachother in harmony. Not the AV master race of pre-1.7 or the HAV master race of 1.8. Is that so much to ask? Minmatar Faction Warfare: Let's get Organized
G Torq ALTA B2O 333	Posted - 2013.12.27 21:07:00 - [27] - Quote LT SHANKS wrote: Proximity explosives should be buffed to 3000 damage instead. Please no - I ran over 2 of them earlier today, almost killed my Saga! Team Fairy DUST HTTP://Dust.Thang.DK/ - DUST514 Fitting Tool based on DUST SDE
OZAROW WarRavens League of Infamy 1154	Posted - 2013.12.27 21:10:00 - [28] - Quote The tank killer Black eagle scout Swarms Plasma cannon Flux Re
Llast 326 An Arkhos 1009	Posted - 2013.12.27 21:11:00 - [29] - Quote OZAROW wrote: The tank killer Black eagle scout Swarms Plasma cannon Flux Re if only KRRROOOOOOM
Jadek Menaheim Xer Cloud Consortium 1446	Posted - 2013.12.27 21:12:00 - [30] - Quote They thing is many RE scouts/logis don't seem to get the idea that remotes are persistent after death. You can use them track any tank across the map, or detonate a series of RE variants--solo or with team coordination. [sig=hex.dec]4d7920313333372048617830727a2078706c6f747a20522058706f7364206259206c766c2035204330646562386b727a[/sig]

Baal Omniscient L.O.T.I.S. D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 879	Posted - 2013.12.27 21:13:00 - [31] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: Breach Remote Explosives. 3500 damage, 0.5m radius. Good idea, impossible to do right now. Right now most vehicles can go so fast that PE's explode after the vehicle is clear of the blast radius. Until that's fixed, this will never work. Buff passive scans & fix TTK! My Closed Beta Alts - Overlord Ulath, Overlord Bosse, Overlord Zero
Jadek Menaheim Xer Cloud Consortium 1446	Posted - 2013.12.27 21:15:00 - [32] - Quote OZAROW wrote: The tank killer Black eagle scout Swarms Plasma cannon Flux Re That's nice. Using flux nade to detonate your RE's. That saves having to switch over. [sig=hex.dec]4d7920313333372048617830727a2078706c6f747a20522058706f7364206259206c766c2035204330646562386b727a[/sig]
Logi Bro Greatness Achieved Through Training EoN. 2510	Posted - 2013.12.27 21:19:00 - [33] - Quote Baal Omniscient wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: Breach Remote Explosives. 3500 damage, 0.5m radius. Good idea, impossible to do right now. Right now most vehicles can go so fast that PE's explode after the vehicle is clear of the blast radius. Until that's fixed, this will never work. He's talking about REs, not PEs. They stick to surfaces, and you can detonate them whenever you like, so it would work. It's a terrible idea, but it would work. No, I am not CCP Logibro.
Jadek Menaheim Xer Cloud Consortium 1446	Posted - 2013.12.27 21:21:00 - [34] - Quote Baal Omniscient wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: Breach Remote Explosives. 3500 damage, 0.5m radius. Good idea, impossible to do right now. Right now most vehicles can go so fast that PE's explode after the vehicle is clear of the blast radius. Until that's fixed, this will never work. You avoid that problem by correctly fielding your PE mines 2 -3 layers deep. Your mines detonate successive layers in the zone. If you work with an RE layed Jihad Jeep primed around the corner, you're guaranteed to take out any vehicle. [sig=hex.dec]4d7920313333372048617830727a2078706c6f747a20522058706f7364206259206c766c2035204330646562386b727a[/sig]
Jadu Wen Xer Deadspace 459	Posted - 2013.12.27 21:24:00 - [35] - Quote Jadek Menaheim wrote: Baal Omniscient wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: Breach Remote Explosives. 3500 damage, 0.5m radius. Good idea, impossible to do right now. Right now most vehicles can go so fast that PE's explode after the vehicle is clear of the blast radius. Until that's fixed, this will never work. You avoid that problem by correctly fielding your PE mines 2 -3 layers deep. Your mines detonate successive layers in the zone. If you work with an RE layed Jihad Jeep primed around the corner, you're guaranteed to take out any vehicle. That sounds more like a bank job GûÆGûêGûæGûæGûÆGûê GûÆGûêGûÇGûÇGûÇ GûÆGûêGûäGûæGûÆGûê GûÆGûêGûÆGûêGûÆGûê GûÆGûêGûÇGûÇGûÇ GûÆGûêGûÆGûêGûÆGûê GûÆGûêGûäGûÇGûäGûê GûÆGûêGûäGûäGûä GûÆGûêGûæGûæGûÇGûê ? SoonGäó
Jadek Menaheim Xer Cloud Consortium 1446	Posted - 2013.12.27 21:30:00 - [36] - Quote Jadu Wen wrote: That sounds more like a bank job Total cost can be quite low if you have the right tools. -BPO LAV -BPO SVER Minmatar Suit with 3x Equipment Slots -F/45 Remote Explosive -F/49 Proximity Explosive -X-3 Quantum Hive [sig=hex.dec]4d7920313333372048617830727a2078706c6f747a20522058706f7364206259206c766c2035204330646562386b727a[/sig]
Roofer Madness Tickle My Null-Sac 718	Posted - 2013.12.27 22:04:00 - [37] - Quote Jadek Menaheim wrote: Jadu Wen wrote: That sounds more like a bank job Total cost can be quite low if you have the right tools. -BPO LAV -BPO SVER Minmatar Suit with 3x Equipment Slots -F/45 Remote Explosive -F/49 Proximity Explosive -X-3 Quantum Hive I only have the fossil minmitar so I get 2 equipment slots (no nanohive) but this is my suicide tank killing fit too. The Dust 514 AFK song Plasma Cannon FTW
Benjamin Ciscko The Generals General Tso's Alliance 1058	Posted - 2013.12.27 22:09:00 - [38] - Quote Leonid Tybalt wrote: Cat Merc wrote: Instant fix to tanker problem What "tanker problem"? There is no tanker problem. Only a bad infantry player problem. this^ Tanker/Assault Can I have my ADV and PRO tanks now (Honeyed Lamb enroute).
Sinboto Simmons SVER True Blood Public Disorder. 3522	Posted - 2013.12.27 22:57:00 - [39] - Quote Vermaak Doe wrote: Llast 326 wrote: Vermaak Doe wrote: Sinboto Simmons wrote: Demolition speced explosives definitely need a buff of some kind to contend with these new tanks, for the PMs it's long overdue, armor destruction is part of it's perilous after all. This, but REs are fine the way they are. No, there needs to be a damage buff. Note that this would matter little against infantry, as they pretty much die to an RE (some tanked out heavies can take an RE) the difference would be in taking out Tanks, LAVs and rarely Dropships. No they don't need to be buffed to a point where not even the toughest dropsuit can't withstand a single RE. Obligatory L2 place more mines at a single place. Vermaak I'm not sure how to feel about this post, I'm actually kind of saddened by it. The F/41 series of remote explosives are among the most powerful manually triggered demolitions devices available in New Eden Each unit is reliable and effective, using a mix of three volatile materials to produce a yield high enough to penetrate layered armor, shatter reinforced structures, and decimate infantry units. ^This is a piece of the description of the REs, this is why I say they are under preforming in their role. Tell me brother does an immortal surviving which the REs are meant to be doing, as I've underlined, in nothing but a suit of personal body armor sound right, or even feasible, to you? Does that sound like the kind of thing that does so little damage? Sinboto - The True Blood Minja Forum Warrior level 3 STB-Infantry (Demolition)
Ghosts Chance Inf4m0us 599	Posted - 2013.12.28 00:05:00 - [40] - Quote Sinboto Simmons wrote: Vermaak Doe wrote: Llast 326 wrote: Vermaak Doe wrote: Sinboto Simmons wrote: Demolition speced explosives definitely need a buff of some kind to contend with these new tanks, for the PMs it's long overdue, armor destruction is part of it's perilous after all. This, but REs are fine the way they are. No, there needs to be a damage buff. Note that this would matter little against infantry, as they pretty much die to an RE (some tanked out heavies can take an RE) the difference would be in taking out Tanks, LAVs and rarely Dropships. No they don't need to be buffed to a point where not even the toughest dropsuit can't withstand a single RE. Obligatory L2 place more mines at a single place. Vermaak I'm not sure how to feel about this post, I'm actually kind of saddened by it. The F/41 series of remote explosives are among the most powerful manually triggered demolitions devices available in New Eden Each unit is reliable and effective, using a mix of three volatile materials to produce a yield high enough to penetrate layered armor, shatter reinforced structures, and decimate infantry units. ^This is a piece of the description of the REs, this is why I say they are under preforming in their role. Tell me brother does an immortal surviving which the REs are meant to be doing, as I've underlined, in nothing but a suit of personal body armor sound right, or even feasible, to you? Does that sound like the kind of thing that does so little damage? i acomplish all of those things with my remotes, your doing it wrong. the ONLY acceptable buff would be to increase the amount of carried REs to match the number of active REs STD - 3/3 ADV 4/4 Pro - 5/5 ANYTHING else would make them OP in extreme ways

Leonid Tybalt DIOS EX. General Tso's Alliance 49	Posted - 2013.12.28 00:22:00 - [41] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Leonid Tybalt wrote: Cat Merc wrote: Instant fix to tanker problem What "tanker problem"? There is no tanker problem. Only a bad infantry player problem. Exactly! Anyone playing infantry is doing it horribly, horribly wrong. If you're not in a tank at this point, you're an idiot. Nope, but you're a bad player when you're not dealing with tanks in an appropriate manner while playing as infantry. At no point in the history of warfare has infantry been considered "effective" at anti-armor. They have had some means to destroy tanks yes, but most of them relied on using the weaknesses of tanks in some way. Only other kinds of artillery/tanks ever had a chance at taking on tanks in a head-on fight. So it is like it is now in dust. Infantry has some means to take down tanks, but other tanks/artillery are still number one when it comes to taking down other tanks. Just like it should be (because anything else would make no sense)
Llast 326 An Arkhos 1012	Posted - 2013.12.28 00:32:00 - [42] - Quote Leonid Tybalt wrote: Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Leonid Tybalt wrote: Cat Merc wrote: Instant fix to tanker problem What "tanker problem"? There is no tanker problem. Only a bad infantry player problem. Exactly! Anyone playing infantry is doing it horribly, horribly wrong. If you're not in a tank at this point, you're an idiot. Nope, but you're a bad player when you're not dealing with tanks in an appropriate manner while playing as infantry. At no point in the history of warfare has infantry been considered "effective" at anti-armor. They have had some means to destroy tanks yes, but most of them relied on using the weaknesses of tanks in some way. Only other kinds of artillery/tanks ever had a chance at taking on tanks in a head-on fight. So it is like it is now in dust. Infantry has some means to take down tanks, but other tanks/artillery are still number one when it comes to taking down other tanks. Just like it should be (because anything else would make no sense) YeahGÇª at no point in history has a tank driver had a 3rd person view of their tank to see all around them either You know that weakness of tanks not being able to guard their own backGÇª X should not be the only counter to XGÇª and we should not ignore that X can also kill ABCDEGÇª Also how do you feel about Tanks being able to run hardeners in cycle without gap? is that effective game play or broken mechanic? KRRROOOOOOM
Robocop Junior BlackWater Liquidations INTERGALACTIC WARPIGS 429	Posted - 2013.12.28 00:34:00 - [43] - Quote Make plasma cannon do 3000 damage with longer reload or 500 damage with quicker reload. If strength were all, tiger would not fear scorpion.
Crimson Cerberes Hammer Of Light Covenant of the Phoenix Alliance 144	Posted - 2013.12.28 00:34:00 - [44] - Quote Thin Decays wrote: If RE's and PE's get buffed then say bye to tanks because whose going to use them if they get instantly poped by REs and say good bye to squad and teams in dust. We are not Chuck Norris or Rambo. You want to win at New Eden get ya ass a squad and have some communications and organised attack on tanks. If you believe I am wrong I believe you need to get back to COD or Battlefield because they are solo PVP games and all about K/D waving. Oh I forgot, tanks should require zero teamwork, but AV should require tons.
stlcarlos989 SVER True Blood Public Disorder. 721	Posted - 2013.12.28 00:45:00 - [45] - Quote +1 every form of AV needs a buff to stop this idiotic tank spam.
Scheneighnay McBob Bojo's School of the Trades 3348	Posted - 2013.12.28 00:54:00 - [46] - Quote I think the tier system should be improved- I would rather have heavier hitting REs as I get advanced and proto than more REs. We used to have a time machine
Crimson Cerberes Hammer Of Light Covenant of the Phoenix Alliance 144	Posted - 2013.12.28 00:57:00 - [47] - Quote Leonid Tybalt wrote: Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Leonid Tybalt wrote: Cat Merc wrote: Instant fix to tanker problem What "tanker problem"? There is no tanker problem. Only a bad infantry player problem. Exactly! Anyone playing infantry is doing it horribly, horribly wrong. If you're not in a tank at this point, you're an idiot. Nope, but you're a bad player when you're not dealing with tanks in an appropriate manner while playing as infantry. At no point in the history of warfare has infantry been considered "effective" at anti-armor. They have had some means to destroy tanks yes, but most of them relied on using the weaknesses of tanks in some way. Only other kinds of artillery/tanks ever had a chance at taking on tanks in a head-on fight. So it is like it is now in dust. Infantry has some means to take down tanks, but other tanks/artillery are still number one when it comes to taking down other tanks. Just like it should be (because anything else would make no sense) Pretty sure this and this works pretty well against tanks, not to mention TOW missiles that are mounted on humvees or kinetic energy penetrators or guided missles or hundreds of other counters. This is of course neglecting what happened last time there was major tank vs. tank warfare going on (WWII). This system was developed making pretty much any infantry able to OHK any tank of the time period. Actually in today's warfare, tanks are pretty obsolete, like the battleship. Air based firepower >>>>>>>>>> tanks. Artillery destroys tanks pretty easily too now. So how about we leave out real world examples? This is a game, and as it is a game reality does not matter.
Leonid Tybalt DIOS EX. General Tso's Alliance 49	Posted - 2013.12.28 01:02:00 - [48] - Quote Llast 326 wrote: Leonid Tybalt wrote: Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Leonid Tybalt wrote: Cat Merc wrote: Instant fix to tanker problem What "tanker problem"? There is no tanker problem. Only a bad infantry player problem. Exactly! Anyone playing infantry is doing it horribly, horribly wrong. If you're not in a tank at this point, you're an idiot. Nope, but you're a bad player when you're not dealing with tanks in an appropriate manner while playing as infantry. At no point in the history of warfare has infantry been considered "effective" at anti-armor. They have had some means to destroy tanks yes, but most of them relied on using the weaknesses of tanks in some way. Only other kinds of artillery/tanks ever had a chance at taking on tanks in a head-on fight. So it is like it is now in dust. Infantry has some means to take down tanks, but other tanks/artillery are still number one when it comes to taking down other tanks. Just like it should be (because anything else would make no sense) YeahGÇª at no point in history has a tank driver had a 3rd person view of their tank to see all around them either You know that weakness of tanks not being able to guard their own backGÇª X should not be the only counter to XGÇª and we should not ignore that X can also kill ABCDEGÇª Also how do you feel about Tanks being able to run hardeners in cycle without gap? is that effective game play or broken mechanic? Nope, but you had periscopes and always the option of popping the top hatch and having a look, and said periscopes could be rotated waaay faster than the rotational speed of the tank turrets in dust have. If you think I had a nasty set of eyes at the back of my head in a tank now, then you'd cry of agony if I was locked to a zoomed in scope but had access to an insta-flip periscope. I mean for christ sake, I play a missile tank now and I repeatedly manage to sneak around and behind enemy railtanks (despite their supposed advantage of third person view). If I can pull that off with a big ass tank, then why can't you in a tiny dropsuit? Also, I applaud that mechanic because I happen to know that it takes a lot of skillpoints to be able to perma-harden your tank, and people who make the investment should be rewarded for it. The thing is running dual hardeners isn't as Badass as you seem to think. I used to do it myself with complex hardeners, but found that the slot you lose for an armor or shield extender made the tank more fragile than using only one hardener in a smart way (i.e only activating it when you actually engage the enemy and always pull out when the hardener duration runs out).
Rusty Shallows 602	Posted - 2013.12.28 01:18:00 - [49] - Quote fragmentedhackslash wrote: LT SHANKS wrote: Proximity explosives should be buffed to 3000 damage instead. Both. Best ideas EVER! MCC Lounge Lizard Forums > Game Fix the game CCP
Crimson Cerberes Hammer Of Light Covenant of the Phoenix Alliance 144	Posted - 2013.12.28 01:20:00 - [50] - Quote Leonid Tybalt wrote: ] Nope, but you had periscopes and always the option of popping the top hatch and having a look, and said periscopes could be rotated waaay faster than the rotational speed of the tank turrets in dust have. If you think I had a nasty set of eyes at the back of my head in a tank now, then you'd cry of agony if I was locked to a zoomed in scope but had access to an insta-flip periscope. I mean for christ sake, I play a missile tank now and I repeatedly manage to sneak around and behind enemy railtanks (despite their supposed advantage of third person view). If I can pull that off with a big ass tank, then why can't you in a tiny dropsuit? Also, I applaud that mechanic because I happen to know that it takes a lot of skillpoints to be able to perma-harden your tank, and people who make the investment should be rewarded for it. The thing is running dual hardeners isn't as Badass as you seem to think. I used to do it myself with complex hardeners, but found that the slot you lose for an armor or shield extender made the tank more fragile than using only one hardener in a smart way (i.e only activating it when you actually engage the enemy and always pull out when the hardener duration runs out). Uhhh.... pretty sure that perma running two 60% hardners ( 15 seconds of non-hardneing every 60) on a gunnlogi means you have slightly more than double your eHP at all times, not to mention that you also recover effectively double ehp every time regen or a booster is used. Also pretty sure you can get this god-mode up and running for the cost of getting a rank 1, 2 rank 2s, and 2 rank 5 skills to lvl 5 (310k sp + 1.3 mil sp + 3 mil sp). For comparison, 4.6 mil sp gets you no where near that level of performance from a dropsuit. EDIT: also tanks go roughly 3-4 times faster than infantry, so it is not easy to sneak up behind them also, IRL tanks suck versus infantry, they are dead without tons of infantry support because: 1) the main gun can not track a person at all 2) tanks don't have scanners 3) tanks are easily diabled (tracks can be dislodged with WW2 technology) also tanks can not be operated by one person

xxwhitedevilxx M Maphia Clan Unit Unicorn 1370	Posted - 2013.12.28 01:23:00 - [51] - Quote Tank-stalking deployable Drones.... :D that would fix the tanks problem Tank 514.
Leonid Tybalt DIOS EX. General Tso's Alliance 49	Posted - 2013.12.28 01:26:00 - [52] - Quote Crimson Cerberes wrote: Leonid Tybalt wrote: Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Leonid Tybalt wrote: Cat Merc wrote: Instant fix to tanker problem What "tanker problem"? There is no tanker problem. Only a bad infantry player problem. Exactly! Anyone playing infantry is doing it horribly, horribly wrong. If you're not in a tank at this point, you're an idiot. Nope, but you're a bad player when you're not dealing with tanks in an appropriate manner while playing as infantry. At no point in the history of warfare has infantry been considered "effective" at anti-armor. They have had some means to destroy tanks yes, but most of them relied on using the weaknesses of tanks in some way. Only other kinds of artillery/tanks ever had a chance at taking on tanks in a head-on fight. So it is like it is now in dust. Infantry has some means to take down tanks, but other tanks/artillery are still number one when it comes to taking down other tanks. Just like it should be (because anything else would make no sense) Pretty sure this and this works pretty well against tanks, not to mention TOW missiles that are mounted on humvees or kinetic energy penetrators or guided missles or hundreds of other counters. This is of course neglecting what happened last time there was major tank vs. tank warfare going on (WWII). This system was developed making pretty much any infantry able to OHK any tank of the time period. Actually in today's warfare, tanks are pretty obsolete, like the battleship. Air based firepower >>>>>>>>>> tanks. Artillery destroys tanks pretty easily too now. So how about we leave out real world examples? This is a game, and as it is a game reality does not matter. No we won't because what you don't seem to realize is that the man portable weapon systems you mention are only truly effective against WWII-era tanks (i.e waaay inferior and obsolete models). Try using the same weapon systems against fully kitted out modern tanks (like the M1 Abrahams or the Leopard 2) then you're going to see a pretty huge drop off in efficiency (that is if you're even given the chance of deploying your puny man-portable weapons in the first place, since modern tanks tend to spot you with infra-red cameras long before you spot them and kill you before you even thought of unstrapping your glorified bazooka of your preference). Don't believe me? Well then just point your eyes to the tank engagements during the invasion or Iraq. Take a look at the ratio of losses between American modern tanks and the pre-cold war era tanks employed by Saddams cronies. Some of the reports I read listed that it the Iraqis lost 70 of their tanks for every Abrhams that the americans lost. 70:1! You are correct partly in one aspect though about tanks becoming obsolete, but it's not because air artillery can destroy tanks, but more because the enemies of the more modern armies of the world JUST DON'T HAVE any weaponry warranting the use of tanks. In essence deploying tanks in most conflicts that industrialized nations can reasonably expect to find themselves in would be akin to a really costly method of hunting a fly with a rocket launcher. When all you are up against are **** ant rogue states or rebel scum armed with IED's, machetes and/or pirate copies of AK47:s sending in tanks is completely unnecessary since armed and armored Humvees will do just as well but to a fraction the cost in deploying tanks. And yes, this is a game. But a game clearly inspired by the real world in terms of technology. The HAV is obviously just a sci-fi version of a tank. If it's gonna look like a tank and act like a tank, then it should AT LEAST retain the effectiveness of a real tank. Turning a sci-fi tank into something LESS effective than modern tanks of today woulf just look silly...
Monkey MAC Lost Millennium 1325	Posted - 2013.12.28 01:30:00 - [53] - Quote Thin Decays wrote: If RE's and PE's get buffed then say bye to tanks because whose going to use them if they get instantly poped by REs and say good bye to squad and teams in dust. We are not Chuck Norris or Rambo. You want to win at New Eden get ya ass a squad and have some communications and organised attack on tanks. If you believe I am wrong I believe you need to get back to COD or Battlefield because they are solo PVP games and all about K/D waving. Says the guy in a tank. RE is underpowered as it is, they don't even blow up turret installations without help. We want more variations of RE too. We want breach explosives, high damage low AOE We want shaped charges rather high damage, no AOE just a column of damage straight up. We want locomotive explosives, medium damage, medium AOE, travels along a straight line from deployment possition. If tanks are getting insta - popped so much more because it takes 2 RE instead of 3, thats a tanker problem right there. But its interesting though, you tell infantry, squad up use teamwork. Yet I don't see tankers doing it. The most teamworkk I see from Tankers is a Tank Wolfpack, hardlybpushing the boat out there. Tanks 514 I told you, I bloody well told you. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
Rusty Shallows 602	Posted - 2013.12.28 01:32:00 - [54] - Quote Cat Merc wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Cat Merc wrote: Instant fix to tanker problem You really do need giant crutches. Giant crutch to beat a giant crutch, seems about right Ummm Cat Merc, you do realize that's going to pass over allot of people's heads? When so many responses are "bad infantry," then any hope of them understanding it's a BS joke stated as solution for a BS HAV problem. Twisted humor is so freaking awesome. Go, go devil face! MCC Lounge Lizard Forums > Game Fix the game CCP
Monkey MAC Lost Millennium 1325	Posted - 2013.12.28 01:46:00 - [55] - Quote Leonid Tybalt wrote: Crimson Cerberes wrote: Leonid Tybalt wrote: Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Leonid Tybalt wrote: What "tanker problem"? There is no tanker problem. Only a bad infantry player problem. Exactly! Anyone playing infantry is doing it horribly, horribly wrong. If you're not in a tank at this point, you're an idiot. Nope, but you're a bad player when you're not dealing with tanks in an appropriate manner while playing as infantry. At no point in the history of warfare has infantry been considered "effective" at anti-armor. They have had some means to destroy tanks yes, but most of them relied on using the weaknesses of tanks in some way. Only other kinds of artillery/tanks ever had a chance at taking on tanks in a head-on fight. So it is like it is now in dust. Infantry has some means to take down tanks, but other tanks/artillery are still number one when it comes to taking down other tanks. Just like it should be (because anything else would make no sense) Pretty sure this and this works pretty well against tanks, not to mention TOW missiles that are mounted on humvees or kinetic energy penetrators or guided missles or hundreds of other counters. This is of course neglecting what happened last time there was major tank vs. tank warfare going on (WWII). This system was developed making pretty much any infantry able to OHK any tank of the time period. Actually in today's warfare, tanks are pretty obsolete, like the battleship. Air based firepower >>>>>>>>>> tanks. Artillery destroys tanks pretty easily too now. So how about we leave out real world examples? This is a game, and as it is a game reality does not matter. No we won't because what you don't seem to realize is that the man portable weapon systems you mention are only truly effective against WWII-era tanks (i.e waaay inferior and obsolete models). Try using the same weapon systems against fully kitted out modern tanks (like the M1 Abrahams or the Leopard 2) then you're going to see a pretty huge drop off in efficiency (that is if you're even given the chance of deploying your puny man-portable weapons in the first place, since modern tanks tend to spot you with infra-red cameras long before you spot them and kill you before you even thought of unstrapping your glorified bazooka of your preference). Don't believe me? Well then just point your eyes to the tank engagements during the invasion or Iraq. Take a look at the ratio of losses between American modern tanks and the pre-cold war era tanks employed by Saddams cronies. Some of the reports I read listed that it the Iraqis lost 70 of their tanks for every Abrhams that the americans lost. 70:1! You are correct partly in one aspect though about tanks becoming obsolete, but it's not because air artillery can destroy tanks, but more because the enemies of the more modern armies of the world JUST DON'T HAVE any weaponry warranting the use of tanks. In essence deploying tanks in most conflicts that industrialized nations can reasonably expect to find themselves in would be akin to a really costly method of hunting a fly with a rocket launcher. When all you are up against are **** ant rogue states or rebel scum armed with IED's, machetes and/or pirate copies of AK47:s sending in tanks is completely unnecessary since armed and armored Humvees will do just as well but to a fraction the cost in deploying tanks. And yes, this is a game. But a game clearly inspired by the real world in terms of technology. The HAV is obviously just a sci-fi version of a tank. If it's gonna look like a tank and act like a tank, then it should AT LEAST retain the effectiveness of a real tank. Turning a sci-fi tank into something LESS effective than modern tanks of today woulf just look silly... Yes an M1 abhrams will beat WW2 tech, but there is plenty of infantry based gear. For example in the new COD they have this IWS thing, which launches bouncing betty's. What if I told you the real life version is an infantry deployable artillery system, that cannot only provide localised strikes from a fixed position. But is also capable of finding and destroying enemy vehicles autonomously. New Shoulder Mounted Javelin Missile launchers have an armour piercing war head, which can punch through the abrams at its thickest point, they just get to blow up halfway through. What about a remote control UAV flown and launched from a single unit capable of dive bombing a tank succesfully through 8 feet of concrete. The only reason the M1 is so succesful is because it is being deployed against inferior competition, its like putting a buggati veyron in a 1 mile drag race against a push bike. Tanks 514 I told you, I bloody well told you. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
Rowdy Railgunner Turalyon 514 Turalyon Alliance 309	Posted - 2013.12.28 01:47:00 - [56] - Quote This is what Swarm Launchers should be like.
Ghosts Chance Inf4m0us 603	Posted - 2013.12.28 01:55:00 - [57] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: Thin Decays wrote: If RE's and PE's get buffed then say bye to tanks because whose going to use them if they get instantly poped by REs and say good bye to squad and teams in dust. We are not Chuck Norris or Rambo. You want to win at New Eden get ya ass a squad and have some communications and organised attack on tanks. If you believe I am wrong I believe you need to get back to COD or Battlefield because they are solo PVP games and all about K/D waving. Says the guy in a tank. RE is underpowered as it is, they don't even blow up turret installations without help. We want more variations of RE too. We want breach explosives, high damage low AOE We want shaped charges rather high damage, no AOE just a column of damage straight up. We want locomotive explosives, medium damage, medium AOE, travels along a straight line from deployment possition. If tanks are getting insta - popped so much more because it takes 2 RE instead of 3, thats a tanker problem right there. But its interesting though, you tell infantry, squad up use teamwork. Yet I don't see tankers doing it. The most teamworkk I see from Tankers is a Tank Wolfpack, hardlybpushing the boat out there. i hope your joking, REs are borderline overpowered.... when tanks use teamwork you DONT see it... it takes the form of communication... so no **** you dont see it your not in their squad. as one of the best demolitions experts int he game i suggest you keep your opinions on remotes to yourself, it makes you look silly. also installations are poped with a single set of 3 REs....
Crimson Cerberes Hammer Of Light Covenant of the Phoenix Alliance 146	Posted - 2013.12.28 01:58:00 - [58] - Quote Leonid Tybalt wrote: Crimson Cerberes wrote: Pretty sure this and this works pretty well against tanks, not to mention TOW missiles that are mounted on humvees or kinetic energy penetrators or guided missles or hundreds of other counters. This is of course neglecting what happened last time there was major tank vs. tank warfare going on (WWII). This system was developed making pretty much any infantry able to OHK any tank of the time period. Actually in today's warfare, tanks are pretty obsolete, like the battleship. Air based firepower >>>>>>>>>> tanks. Artillery destroys tanks pretty easily too now. So how about we leave out real world examples? This is a game, and as it is a game reality does not matter. No we won't because what you don't seem to realize is that the man portable weapon systems you mention are only truly effective against WWII-era tanks (i.e waaay inferior and obsolete models). Try using the same weapon systems against fully kitted out modern tanks (like the M1 Abrahams or the Leopard 2) then you're going to see a pretty huge drop off in efficiency (that is if you're even given the chance of deploying your puny man-portable weapons in the first place, since modern tanks tend to spot you with infra-red cameras long before you spot them and kill you before you even thought of unstrapping your glorified bazooka of your preference). Don't believe me? Well then just point your eyes to the tank engagements during the invasion or Iraq. Take a look at the ratio of losses between American modern tanks and the pre-cold war era tanks employed by Saddams cronies. Some of the reports I read listed that it the Iraqis lost 70 of their tanks for every Abrhams that the americans lost. 70:1! You are correct partly in one aspect though about tanks becoming obsolete, but it's not because air artillery can destroy tanks, but more because the enemies of the more modern armies of the world JUST DON'T HAVE any weaponry warranting the use of tanks. In essence deploying tanks in most conflicts that industrialized nations can reasonably expect to find themselves in would be akin to a really costly method of hunting a fly with a rocket launcher. When all you are up against are **** ant rogue states or rebel scum armed with IED's, machetes and/or pirate copies of AK47:s sending in tanks is completely unnecessary since armed and armored Humvees will do just as well but to a fraction the cost in deploying tanks. And yes, this is a game. But a game clearly inspired by the real world in terms of technology. The HAV is obviously just a sci-fi version of a tank. If it's gonna look like a tank and act like a tank, then it should AT LEAST retain the effectiveness of a real tank. Turning a sci-fi tank into something LESS effective than modern tanks of today woulf just look silly... So you obviously read not one thing I linked. Modern handheld anti-tank countermeasures are effective against reactive armor (M1 Abrams) because they use a two stage system in order to penetrate it. Some of the more advanced munitions use three stages. My previous allegory was to the last time tank vs tank combat was actually a thing (WWII). At the end of WWII, infantry anti-tank weaponry could OHK tanks. You for some inexplicable reason think that somehow the first desert storm has anything to do with modern anti-tank weaponry. T-72s are 20 years outdated by the abrams, of course they will be destroyed. Iraq had nearly no modern military technology. This is why the ONLY time period we can compare infantry anti-tank technology to tanks is WWII. It is the only time when you had technological equvelency (or close to it). One hell-fire missile from an attack chopper easily destroyed M1 Abrams during the gulf war (this is historical fact.) Modern conflicts all involve one side using antiquated tech versus cutting edge military hardware. Please STFU about stuff you have NO IDEA about.
Cosgar ParagonX 9038	Posted - 2013.12.28 02:00:00 - [59] - Quote I'd settle for 2500 with mines being buffed to 3000 or an extra 2~4 carried across the tiers with a 8m radius. A bigger, screen shaking explosion would be nice too. I tried to put a level into Amarr Commando once, but got a server notification saying "Why?"
DEATH DEALER 1975 KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 9	Posted - 2013.12.28 02:29:00 - [60] - Quote Crimson Cerberes wrote: Thin Decays wrote: If RE's and PE's get buffed then say bye to tanks because whose going to use them if they get instantly poped by REs and say good bye to squad and teams in dust. We are not Chuck Norris or Rambo. You want to win at New Eden get ya ass a squad and have some communications and organised attack on tanks. If you believe I am wrong I believe you need to get back to COD or Battlefield because they are solo PVP games and all about K/D waving. Oh I forgot, tanks should require zero teamwork, but AV should require tons. I am so tired of you people saying that tankers don't need team work. I have to know where are the swarms coming from, where is that rail tank at, or that forge gunner and I have to know when a red tank is being called in. All this is provided by my squad mates, hence teamwork! Additionally, it takes team work to take on other tanks...ever been winning a tank battle and suddenly another red tank shows up? That was because he radioed is wingman, who told him back up while he comes up the other way, teamwork. I was a tanker for six years in the U.S. Army and have news for you guys. Tanks in really life are 3x times faster than infantry. When deployed tank companies give up a platoon of tanks to an infantry unit and we get a platoon of grunts. The grunts provide security and keep other grunts from getting close enough to use AV (sound familiar?). When artillery starts to strike we leave the area at over 50 miles an hour. Finally, as much as I hate to lose a tank to a rail tank on the red line, in real life that is one of the roles of a tank...to reach out and touch the enemy.

DUST Fiend OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 9924	Posted - 2013.12.28 02:41:00 - [61] - Quote Current RE's kill tanks plenty fine..... Videos / Fiction Closed Beta Vet; Dropship Pilot
Sinboto Simmons SVER True Blood Public Disorder. 3940	Posted - 2014.01.12 09:33:00 - [62] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Current RE's kill tanks plenty fine..... No they do not. Sinboto - The True Blood Minja Forum Warrior level 3 STB-Infantry (Demolition)
thomas mak STRONG-ARMED BANDITS Public Disorder. 13	Posted - 2014.01.12 09:45:00 - [63] - Quote Yoma Carrim wrote: How about Basic REs stay as they are ADV- Buft to 2250 Proto can be 3000 k? from view of tanker I will deal with this *Real tanker dies with their tanks!*
Kierkegaard Soren Forsaken Immortals Top Men. 102	Posted - 2014.01.12 10:06:00 - [64] - Quote I want my goddam melts bombs. I want to melt tanks. Ok? K. Thanks. Bye. Dedicated Commando. So it's a good job KDR doesn't bother me, really.
Jastad D.A.R.K L.E.G.I.O.N D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 397	Posted - 2014.01.12 10:43:00 - [65] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Cat Merc wrote: Instant fix to tanker problem You really do need giant crutches. OMG....You say this....for real? Once you try "HMG-FAT" you never get back...
devonus durga P.L.A.N. B 69	Posted - 2014.01.12 11:16:00 - [66] - Quote Leonid Tybalt wrote: Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Leonid Tybalt wrote: Cat Merc wrote: Instant fix to tanker problem What "tanker problem"? There is no tanker problem. Only a bad infantry player problem. Exactly! Anyone playing infantry is doing it horribly, horribly wrong. If you're not in a tank at this point, you're an idiot. Nope, but you're a bad player when you're not dealing with tanks in an appropriate manner while playing as infantry. At no point in the history of warfare has infantry been considered "effective" at anti-armor. They have had some means to destroy tanks yes, but most of them relied on using the weaknesses of tanks in some way. Only other kinds of artillery/tanks ever had a chance at taking on tanks in a head-on fight. So it is like it is now in dust. Infantry has some means to take down tanks, but other tanks/artillery are still number one when it comes to taking down other tanks. Just like it should be (because anything else would make no sense) Please tell me of these weaknesses tanks have, last I checked they haveno blind spot, can swivel their turrent as fast as any infantry can run (cept scouts) can maneuver over rough terrain easier then the LAV, can reduce their damage taken, and travel faster then my LAV most of the time. Personally if we are going to discuss tanks as only weak to other tanks and artillay, I want some artillery! Make us a man portable indirect fire weapon, give us mortars! Put them in an av and a to infantry shrapnel form too. And obviously nonen of these tankers have seen what a paladin can do. More or less since tanks were around militaries have devised to one shot kill or disable these weapons, usually using infantry, as infantry (outside dust of course) can more easily out maneuver tanks, and more easily hit their weak spots (which would be the treads, turrents, and rear, as well as the ammo storage area)
Korvin Lomont United Pwnage Service RISE of LEGION 451	Posted - 2014.01.12 11:25:00 - [67] - Quote Hmm instead of giving them a general buff I would rather like to see a reasonable damage gain through tiers and maybe 5% damage per level of skill. This way you need SP invested in RE's for beeing able to (more) easily kill HAVs. So maybe: std 1500 adv 1650 Pro 1800 And with max Skills std 1875 adv 2062 pro 2250 BTW My numbers are more random, they just should underline my point...
Sana Rayya WASTELAND JUNK REMOVAL Top Men. 709	Posted - 2014.01.12 11:35:00 - [68] - Quote Perhaps a more elegant solution would be to give REs two damage values - the current 1500 HP for splash, and a higher amount for direct damage (when something is actually touching the RE). That way players can do extra damage when placing REs directly on tanks or detonating them right as tanks roll over them, and damage to infantry remains the same.


Pages: 1 2 3 :: [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.