DUST Search - Yet Another Tank Thread

Takahiro Kashuken wrote:

Atiim wrote:

Takahiro Kashuken wrote:

My tank pre 1.7 cost 1.7+mil but AV always said it doesnt matter how much it costs

So now it doesnt matter how much tanks/AV cost because the argument is already invalid

If its not invalid like AV players are trying to say then my 500k tank should be as good as the entire enemy team, frankly pre 1.7 my 1.7mil tank should have been stronger than both teams put together but it wasnt

I still believe that it doesn't, and I stick to what I said pre 1.7.

However, there is a problem with things costing to less in terms of balance, as that would cause things to be spammed in rapid succession, similar to vehicles now.

Lets take this for example. ISK may not be a factor, but what if Particle Cannons only cost 5k ISK? Would you agree that 5k would be way too cheap for a PRO Railgun Turret?

ISK is not a balancing factor to an extent. Which is exactly what I've been saying pre 1.7 and I still say it now.

Yet you still try and balance around ISK when it suits you

151k for my Proto FG fit, maybe it could go over 200k so i request my proto turret and mods with a basic hull also cost less than 200k, it will only cost upto 200k when i get a proto hull


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Rizlax Yazzax Molon Labe. Public Disorder. 27	Posted - 2013.12.27 14:03:00 - [1] - Quote I know this has been done to death and I apologise for adding yet another, but I decided I want to weigh in with everyone else. For those who care, I run AV swarms and am a useless pilot. Tanks have been up and down all through this game's development. From having near infinite eHP to being destroyed by a breeze. Circa 1.6 tanks were a viable force, provided you had a load of SP and cash invested and knew what you were doing. Granted it was a niche (most dropped like flies) and only the best could do it successfully, but it was doable nonetheless. Many complained of high ISK costs while being easily destroyed. I agreed with this to some degree because with suits you can drop costs while still being effective. Whereas for someone completely skilled into tanks it wasn't so simple, if you sacrificed fits you may as well have given the ISK to the opposition directly. Come 1.7 tanks are accessible for all and are a much more intimidating presence on the battlefield. This has caused much joy from tankers and much hate from infantry. I personally believe a balance has been reached (bar a few tweaks) as the tankers have their survivability and power, but at the same time are easily destroyed (hear me out). CCP's "waves of opportunity" are the most effective way to keep both sides of the equation happy. Hardeners give vehicles the ability to enter hot-zones and change the tide of battle, but can easily be destroyed without them. The issues with tanks being indestructible are being misplaced on the tanks themselves, and used as an excuse by poor AVers (sorry but it is true). A tank with hardeners down can easily be destroyed by AV (especially the militia), but it seems the majority of players refuse to use new tactics and still expect to be able to bum-rush tanks head on and win. This won't work regardless of hardener status. The real issue is hardener stacking. As has been stated several times by other people, running two or more grants near constant damage resistance, while investing enough SP effectively eliminates cooldowns. This removes waves of opportunity and breaks the intended, effective, mechanics. Another common complaint is tank spam (more to the point MLT tank spam). Particularly in ambush which to be fair is nothing new. Ambush has always been target practice for tanks, but that's another issue for another time. If enemy tanks are over-running the map you have three options: 1. Stay away from them (not always possible on the more open maps but still a valid choice) 2. Switch to AV and fight back (remember to use tactics in this tactical game) 3. Call in your own tank ("but I shouldn't have to" etc etc. If you want to take on 2-6 tanks on foot good luck, but with no oppostion you'd be surprised how many "tankers" get absorbed killing infantry and don't see you coming. Once they are no longer safe many don't call in another). Of course there are exceptions (particularly with number 3) but the system as it works now is near perfect for me. Sure there are matches where nothing works right and you just can't fight back, but how is that any different from games where you get redlined by stacked teams? Once more content is added the infantry/vehicle dynamic will even out more with combat being more fluid. And last but not least, people are playing with new toys just like they did with the CR/RR. Once the novelty wears off many will return to infantry roles, while a few will decide to invest and keep tanking. I believe that's all I have to say on the matter and after reading looks coherent enough to me. Flame away Sirs and Madams, blind me with your nuclear fire!
Rizlax Yazzax Molon Labe. Public Disorder. 28	Posted - 2013.12.27 14:30:00 - [2] - Quote DeeJay One wrote: Frankly as much as I'm against solo AV-ing a tank, I'd like to see vehicles having capacitors, just module cool down isn't enough. This would bring some balance on the endless repping tanks, so you couldn't get a tank cap stable without sacrificing something, be it firepower or HP. Also it would make them more in line with the rest of the universe I don't play EVE but have read many a topic on capacitors (or more a lack of) and I agree it does seem the most logical way to solve a lot of the issues. Keeping with lore/consistent universe is CCP's child, hopefully they are already working on it.
Rizlax Yazzax Molon Labe. Public Disorder. 28	Posted - 2013.12.27 14:39:00 - [3] - Quote Lucifalic wrote: Honestly they are just too fast. And too cheap. But don't overdue it. Raise the price some not a bunch. Slow them down some don't make them total snails. The range nerf to swarms combined with the speed boost to tanks made them ****. Find the balance. Stop these massive nerfs/buffs Yes the tank speed is a bit much, especially after you've been stalking a tank and it just zips off after one volley of swarms. More of an issue on open maps, but still an issue. As for cost, again it is a MLT tank problem. They are easily spammable with zero skill for the same cost as a dropsuit (give or take). A decent tank fit now can still run pilots 250-500k ISK, or at least from what I've seen on the forums. Which I think is fair as they make very little/no profit for losing a tank, while still being satisfied they put up a decent fight. Raising MLT costs means raising all other costs, although I have seen quite a few pilots say they would be happy with old prices with tanks as they are now. CCP changed too many things at once and we just need some minor damage control.
Rizlax Yazzax Molon Labe. Public Disorder. 29	Posted - 2013.12.27 14:56:00 - [4] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: +1, OP. Nerf to HAV speed, and possibly acceleration, and to the nitrous' effectiveness. Remove active hardener stacking. Remove active damage mod stacking (to compensate for the removal of hardener stacking). Watch infantry QQ subside. Does that mean infantry also remove the 3 dmg mods they also run on suits? Good point, no stacked DMG on tanks, gotta take it off infantry too. Regardless they aren't the problem, the only advantage of tank DMG mods is against other tanks. If you're stacking mods to use against infantry then it's your own ISK you're wasting.
Rizlax Yazzax Molon Labe. Public Disorder. 30	Posted - 2013.12.27 15:26:00 - [5] - Quote Atiim wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: +1, OP. Nerf to HAV speed, and possibly acceleration, and to the nitrous' effectiveness. Remove active hardener stacking. Remove active damage mod stacking (to compensate for the removal of hardener stacking). Watch infantry QQ subside. Does that mean infantry also remove the 3 dmg mods they also run on suits? Sure you can. Right after you: Buff every niche weapon in the game by giving them 20-30% extra damage, make my dropsuit invulnerable to all but 6 weapons in the entire game, give my dropsuit the ability to use nitrous to GTFO faster than even a scout could ever possible hope to achieve, buff my base HP to 4000HP, and give me a weapon that can shred vehicles without having to compromise anything. Until then, it's not happening. Thought it would only be a matter of time before you showed up Atiim. If you could provide a decent argument instead of using extreme hyperbole for once that'd be great. Comparing tanks to dropsuits in the way you do, especially over one module in this case, does nothing but paint you as self entitled and ignorant.
Rizlax Yazzax Molon Labe. Public Disorder. 31	Posted - 2013.12.27 15:51:00 - [6] - Quote Atiim wrote: Rizlax Yazzax wrote: Thought it would only be a matter of time before you showed up Atiim. If you could provide a decent argument instead of using extreme hyperbole for once that'd be great. Comparing tanks to dropsuits in the way you do, especially over one module in this case, does nothing but paint you as self entitled and ignorant. I'm doing exactly what they were doing. Comparing dropsuits modules to vehicle modules. I would say I'm surprised that you didn't call them out for doing so, but I already know that tunnelvision is mighty in tankers. If you want to balance an infantry module because of changes to vehicle modules, then you have to do so accordingly to all of the aspects of said module that would become broken because of the "eye for an eye" logic tankers like Tankahiro like to use on a regular basis. That's what I said and I fail to see the problem with such. As for using extreme hyperbole over decent arguments, not one single argument I (and many others) have ever made in regards to V/AV have ever been dis-proven with actual logic. If you want to be attempt to be the first than go on ahead. I'm waiting. Well first of all I'm far from a tanker, as stated in the very first line of OP. And yes they were comparing the modules between tanks and dropsuits, in which I agreed change one you have to change the other. However, damage mods are not the issue with tanks - they only really make a difference against other tanks. I agree with you that no argument on here has ever been settled with logic because, well, it's the internet and everyone's views are right. Regardless of how well the argument is presented. That's why I try to tell it as it is (as per my OP). Of course there is bias, there always will be no matter who is posting or the subject. It was nothing personal against you, I would just like a discussion that doesn't devolve into ****-flinging.
Rizlax Yazzax Molon Labe. Public Disorder. 31	Posted - 2013.12.27 16:04:00 - [7] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Atiim wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: My tank pre 1.7 cost 1.7+mil but AV always said it doesnt matter how much it costs So now it doesnt matter how much tanks/AV cost because the argument is already invalid If its not invalid like AV players are trying to say then my 500k tank should be as good as the entire enemy team, frankly pre 1.7 my 1.7mil tank should have been stronger than both teams put together but it wasnt I still believe that it doesn't, and I stick to what I said pre 1.7. However, there is a problem with things costing to less in terms of balance, as that would cause things to be spammed in rapid succession, similar to vehicles now. Lets take this for example. ISK may not be a factor, but what if Particle Cannons only cost 5k ISK? Would you agree that 5k would be way too cheap for a PRO Railgun Turret? ISK is not a balancing factor to an extent. Which is exactly what I've been saying pre 1.7 and I still say it now. Yet you still try and balance around ISK when it suits you 151k for my Proto FG fit, maybe it could go over 200k so i request my proto turret and mods with a basic hull also cost less than 200k, it will only cost upto 200k when i get a proto hull As far as ISK cost I believe it should factor into the effectiveness of a tank but not a huge amount to its survivability. Since we are comparing suits to vehicles, proto suits/equipment provide much more effectiveness with little added to survivability (except in extreme cases such as dual tanked logi). A proto-fitted tank should be powerful but if you want to keep it in line with suit stats, it gains little in life-span. Tanks probably could stand to be a little more pricey, but that is just another issue created by the MLT tanks effectiveness with 0SP investment.
Rizlax Yazzax Molon Labe. Public Disorder. 34	Posted - 2013.12.27 20:19:00 - [8] - Quote Flix Keptick wrote: +1 You summed up everything perfectly. I must (reluctantly) agree that stacking hardeners breaks the balance intended by CCP... Think that's the first time anyone has outright agreed with me, and a tanker too!!! See people of Dust, we can all get along if we try