| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
1597
   |
Posted - 2013.12.29 18:55:00 -
[31] - Quote
Aizen Intiki wrote:Thor Odinson42 wrote:Stacking penalties need to be applied for hardeners until capacitors are introduced to vehicles.
I keep seeing tankers saying stupid AVers need to wait for hardeners to stop. What about the tanks that are fit for constant hardening? In other words the ones that HAVE to be destroyed by another tank?
You can't perma run hardeners on armor HAV's without giving up the reppers, and that means it'll have just over 12k eHP, which is what I used to have on my old HAV. chase the HAV around for a bit and it'll die. However, those Caldari HAV's are a problem, as you don't have to give up repping for the hardeners. They need longer cooldowns.
Do you tank? Why do you think you could dictate how tanks are to be run with any legitimacy?
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.
1597
|
Posted - 2013.12.29 18:56:00 -
[32] - Quote
Thor Odinson42 wrote:Stacking penalties need to be applied for hardeners until capacitors are introduced to vehicles.
I keep seeing tankers saying stupid AVers need to wait for hardeners to stop. What about the tanks that are fit for constant hardening? In other words the ones that HAVE to be destroyed by another tank?
Why do you see that as a problem?
Infantry cries for tank changes, and they don't like them. Tell them to use vehicles, they complain, and use cars anyway
|
Aizen Intiki
Hell's Gate Inc
611
|
Posted - 2013.12.29 18:59:00 -
[33] - Quote
ReGnYuM wrote:Tankers just simply disgust me. There is a reason why players choose s a role like tanking, and its not gun game lol.
What is this role you speak of? I chose it because it reminded me of flying in EVE.
"Hello, world!" lol, sounds like something a whore lover would say
Alt of the great Godin
I like chocolate ^___^
|
Thor Odinson42
Molon Labe.
Public Disorder.
2468
|
Posted - 2013.12.29 20:44:00 -
[34] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Thor Odinson42 wrote:Stacking penalties need to be applied for hardeners until capacitors are introduced to vehicles.
I keep seeing tankers saying stupid AVers need to wait for hardeners to stop. What about the tanks that are fit for constant hardening? In other words the ones that HAVE to be destroyed by another tank?
Why do you see that as a problem?
Asking that question at all means there's not much for me to discuss with you.
It sounds like you want a win button.
Remove time in battle from ISK payout formula and provide a bonus to winning team... Watch battles become fun again.
|
Ensar Cael
The Unit 514
74
|
Posted - 2013.12.29 20:52:00 -
[35] - Quote
Slow the tank speed another 5% , increase the prices and give AV a damage buff of 5 % or 10%. Otherwise leave tanks as they are. |
Atiim
Living Like Larry Schwag
2756
|
Posted - 2013.12.29 21:06:00 -
[36] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:stlcarlos989 wrote:Keri Starlight wrote:What's the purpose of an AV tank if vehicles cannot be a real threat to infantry?  Good rail tankers still wreck infantry and did you not read what i said about small blasters? Tankers are better than you. And we don't all snipe from a mountain.
Tankers are the princesses of DUST. They are no better than the FoTM players or Slayer logis.
And not all AV sniped from a mountain, yet you refused to admit that.
I guess Spkr4TheDead logic doesn't work to well when it's actually applied to something.
Here's an example.
...
|
Atiim
Living Like Larry Schwag
2759
|
Posted - 2013.12.29 21:47:00 -
[37] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:
Yea aslong as the infantry is the size of a house and is utterly useless in infantry areas
If you cant solo a mlt tank with proto AV then your doing it wrong
If your getting soloed by even officer AV while in a MLT tank your clearly doing it wrong.
...
|
MINA Longstrike
2Shitz 1Giggle
188
|
Posted - 2013.12.29 21:49:00 -
[38] - Quote
Following with the windows of opportunity thing the 'biggest' issue is that when hardeners are off light av weapons can't do enough damage to really scare a tank. I'm currently against light av (especially incorrect damage types) being 'super effective' against tanks with hardeners up - if you want to kill a tank while its hardeners are active you should have either overwhelming numbers, heavy av, or another tank. Now as for when av is down swarms should be getting +2 missiles per shot, and plc's 3 rounds in chamber + 18 max, allowing them to be very effective while hardeners are down.
And the tanks need a cost increase on the hulls + large turrets bringing them to about 400k for standard + 700-900k for proto. Playing around with the rest of the modules affects costs of other vehicles too much with no real increase in efficiency (and I don't want to go back to 1.2m isk dropships that are twoshotted) |
Everything Dies
Chatelain Rapid Response
Gallente Federation
384
|
Posted - 2013.12.29 21:56:00 -
[39] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:
Infantry should only be allowed AR/SMG/HMG so that they can focus on being infantry and if infantry wants to be even more effective against tanks he has to get a 3man group with FG and use teamwork
By this logic, one side deploying three blaster tanks would require at least 9 players from the other team to counter. Yeah, good luck winning the battle when three players can tie up over half of your squad.
Give me a break...given how cheap tanks are now, they should be living in fear of getting caught by a single AV user. Assuming, of course, that they don't have their hardeners up and are incapable of driving for the two or three seconds before escaping the SL lock-on range.
Life is killing me.
|
Atiim
Living Like Larry Schwag
2759
|
Posted - 2013.12.29 21:59:00 -
[40] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:
Do you tank? Why do you think you could dictate how tanks are to be run with any legitimacy?
Do you AV? Why do you think you could (or should) dictate how AV is to be used with any legitimacy?
...
|
|
|
CharCharOdell
1868
|
Posted - 2013.12.29 22:02:00 -
[41] - Quote
Increasing tank hulls costs by 50% would actually curb the tank spam a lot.
Gùñ-é-º+¼+ò+¦GÖÑ+ú+ú+¡ GÖÑ'Ðe+ü+üGùÑ
Gùú -ä>-üð+++Ç++§<-¡<-¡ Gùó
I like railguns.
|
Atiim
Living Like Larry Schwag
2759
|
Posted - 2013.12.29 22:06:00 -
[42] - Quote
CharCharOdell wrote:Increasing tank hulls costs by 50% would actually curb the tank spam a lot.
While also making the vehicle class accessible for the rich only again, which is why many didn't tank pre 1.6.
I believe there is a better way.
...
|
Freshticles
Cobra Unit
410
|
Posted - 2013.12.29 22:10:00 -
[43] - Quote
 ReGnYuM wrote:Tankers just simply disgust me. There is a reason why players choose s a role like tanking, and its not gun game lol.
Regnum where do you get your throat lozenges, I can't believe you don't have throat pain after all the raging you do.
Level 9001 Forum Wizard
|
Everything Dies
Chatelain Rapid Response
Gallente Federation
385
|
Posted - 2013.12.29 22:10:00 -
[44] - Quote
CharCharOdell wrote:Increasing tank hulls costs by 50% would actually curb the tank spam a lot.
True, but I don't want to see a battlefield devoid of tanks...I want them to remain relatively cheap (as in you can lose two and still come out of the match with a profit) but more susceptible to counter-measures. The combination of increased speed + hardeners + reduction to SL lock-on range + reduction to SL damage resulted in a massive change to the basic game that rewards the tank spam we're currently seeing.
Hell, at this point in time it's much more effective for me to hop in a militia rail tank than to throw on a my proto AV suit and try to hunt down tanks, particularly when they can high-tail it out of danger after the first swarm hits. It's even reached the point now that I consider "going sniping" to mean "calling in a rail tank and trying to pick off any approaching enemy tanks."
Life is killing me.
|
MINA Longstrike
2Shitz 1Giggle
188
|
Posted - 2013.12.29 22:32:00 -
[45] - Quote
Everything Dies wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:
Infantry should only be allowed AR/SMG/HMG so that they can focus on being infantry and if infantry wants to be even more effective against tanks he has to get a 3man group with FG and use teamwork
By this logic, one side deploying three blaster tanks would require at least 9 players from the other team to counter. Yeah, good luck winning the battle when three players can tie up over half of your squad. Give me a break...given how cheap tanks are now, they should be living in fear of getting caught by a single AV user. Assuming, of course, that they don't have their hardeners up and are incapable of driving for the two or three seconds before escaping the SL lock-on range.
3 players with av don't have their weapons stop working when they kill one tank. |
stlcarlos989
SVER True Blood
Public Disorder.
755
|
Posted - 2013.12.29 23:28:00 -
[46] - Quote
Everything Dies wrote:CharCharOdell wrote:Increasing tank hulls costs by 50% would actually curb the tank spam a lot. True, but I don't want to see a battlefield devoid of tanks...I want them to remain relatively cheap (as in you can lose two and still come out of the match with a profit) but more susceptible to counter-measures. The combination of increased speed + hardeners + reduction to SL lock-on range + reduction to SL damage resulted in a massive change to the basic game that rewards the tank spam we're currently seeing. Hell, at this point in time it's much more effective for me to hop in a militia rail tank than to throw on a my proto AV suit and try to hunt down tanks, particularly when they can high-tail it out of danger after the first swarm hits. It's even reached the point now that I consider "going sniping" to mean "calling in a rail tank and trying to pick off any approaching enemy tanks."
That is complete trash if I lose 2 of my proto dropsuits with proto weapons, I'll be lucky to break even and thats also with me leading the team in kills and WP. Bring out a tank in a pub match and losing it should result in a loss not profit.
If tanks are going to be this cheap and effective they should be easily solo'd by proto AV considering that its proto AV vs militia and standard tanks.
Miltia tanks should be great at killing infantry but easy to kill and cheap. Good proto tanks should absolutely wreck havoc and be extremely difficult to bring down, but so expensive that they are only affordable by corps for PC.
STB Director, #1 in Warpoints E3 Closed Beta Build
|
Rusty Shallows
612
|
Posted - 2013.12.30 00:06:00 -
[47] - Quote
stlcarlos989 wrote:Balancing Tanks with a Nerf or AV buff.
1.7 definitively proves the Devs do not work that way. A good many of us thought they learned the lesson and were beyond excessive nerfing and buffing at the same time. We were wrong. There is something fundamentally wrong with their current Design Processes and until that is addresses they will be unable to handle anything. The whole thing is very confusing since altering single variables and observing a change to a system is a more logical approach than jumbling everything at once.
MCC Lounge Lizard
Forums > Game
Fix the game CCP
|
Jammeh McJam
Robbing The Hood
Public Disorder.
65
|
Posted - 2013.12.30 00:24:00 -
[48] - Quote
stlcarlos989 wrote:Thor Odinson42 wrote:Stacking penalties need to be applied for hardeners until capacitors are introduced to vehicles.
I keep seeing tankers saying stupid AVers need to wait for hardeners to stop. What about the tanks that are fit for constant hardening? In other words the ones that HAVE to be destroyed by another tank?
Thank you, its also the fact that I see a tank and its not shiny I sneak up behind it start slamming it with AV, then hardeners on its drives away and I'm left standing there I just want vehicle balance, and tankers don't they want their tanks to be easy to operate, destroy infantry, difficult to kill with AV, and cheap. Tanks need to easily dominate infantry and vehicles, be hard to kill, and expensive as all hell OR Tanks need to easily dominate infantry and vehicles, be easy to kill, and cheap Right now tankers have the best of both worlds.
I vote expensive and powerful
"We may be small and disorganized, but we're still gonna rape you" - Intergalactic Super Friends
|
jerrmy12 kahoalii
Forty-Nine Fedayeen
Minmatar Republic
200
|
Posted - 2013.12.30 07:31:00 -
[49] - Quote
stlcarlos989 wrote:jerrmy12 kahoalii wrote:stlcarlos989 wrote:Right it makes sense that one guys can drive, operate the turret, and reload it at the same time  Something that is done by a 4-man crew in real tanks. Real life example? In eve you pilot big ass ships by yourself so thats out the window EVE pilots are captains of space ship crews, the crews just don't play a visible role in the game.
the pilots in tanks aren't visible either
recuruit link
5 to 11 mil isk per 100k recuruit
|
CharCharOdell
1872
|
Posted - 2013.12.30 19:13:00 -
[50] - Quote
ReGnYuM wrote:Tankers just simply disgust me. There is a reason why players choose s a role like tanking, and its not gun game lol.
That only applied in the early beta and right now. Chrome-1.6, tanks were too expensive and difficult to use for this who just wanted to get a high KDR.
Why did real tankers stay with tanks through 1.0-1.6 IF they were so bad? Answer that question while supporting you previous statement and you get a cookie, if you don't then you look stupid.
Note that I don't think tanks are balances right now. They're OP, but only OP for their price in terms of MLT tanks.
Gùñ-é-º+¼+ò+¦GÖÑ+ú+ú+¡ GÖÑ'Ðe+ü+üGùÑ
Gùú -ä>-üð+++Ç++§<-¡<-¡ Gùó
I like railguns.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |