DUST Search - I used to kill tanks - now I AM the tank (honeyed lamb inside)

Pvt Numnutz wrote:

Nitrobeacon wrote:

Justicar Karnellia wrote:

Nitrobeacon wrote:

I agree with most parts, but to add to this, I don't think that cycling hardeners is a big issue. First of all, doing so in a Gunnlogi requires 3 hardeners, only one of which will be used out of the three, so a Gunnlogi who uses all of their modules instead of "cycling about 1 out of 3 high slots" will utterly destroy the cycling tank, so for Gunnlogies I don't recall this an issue.

Armor tankers only need 2 hardeners to cycle, but then again a guy who activates all hardeners has better survivability against another tank.

To be honest cycling is just a very risky move, you are vulnerable to tank to tank 1 v 1s as he likely used both his armor hardeners while you are using 1 out of 3/2

Also cycling adds to tactics of the gameplay, cycling is used when you need constant toughness, while 2 hardeners all tanked up is used for a more "I really need to take hits right now, there's two tanks over there". It makes one require a knowledge of the surroundings, and decide whether they need to take small hits via cycling or critical hits through dual hardening.

Hey there. Thanks for reading and for replying. It's true I have less experience in tank vs tank combat and the tanks I ran with the skills I had didn't permit 3 hardeners so your comments are completely valid. In the tank vs tank combat I image tactical usage of multiple hardeners might be warranted depending on your situation - I just wonder how this can be tweaked to be able to balance it out against infantry AV...

Oh yes I agree, usually only one hardener is whats needed to take infantry hits like nothing (I'd say 2 is what is needed to to such a thing). Probably a buff to AV is in order. Perhaps increase all av damage by 50%.

Please no. I just turned my first profit in a long time flying a dropship. Sure I'm actually down but I made 100k in profit! 50% buff is not the answer, that's just going to undo everythin and put vehicles back in 1.6 condition. I want av guys to have fun too but not at the cost of my own fun. Av should get a little more damage but I don't believe a soldier with a light weapon that costs 1/16th of my dropship should be able to solo me. Otherwise I'll be out of isk and a job. That's not to say that av shouldn't be effective, but it should be difficult to bring down proto fit vehicles.

Op good post, I'm sure this will spark some good discussion. Its a vary good summary of the current imbalance with tanks.

If Walking Is So Good For You, Then Why Does My Mailman Look Like Jabba The Hut?

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2152	Posted - 2014.01.06 14:46:00 - [31] - Quote Scout Registry wrote: @ OP +3. Nice work! Agreed with each and every word of this. Thoughts on "Militia Tanks are the only Problem"? @ Takahiro Kashuken The only mercs in your corner are mercs like Spkr. What does this tell you about your position? That the majority that play dust are ******* idiots and AV players are terrible players Intelligence is OP
Surt gods end Demon Ronin 1485	Posted - 2014.01.06 14:53:00 - [32] - Quote Scout Registry wrote: @ OP +3. Nice work! Agreed with each and every word of this. Thoughts on "Militia Tanks are the only Problem"? @ Takahiro Kashuken The only mercs in your corner are mercs like Spkr. What does this tell you about your position? Beat me to it. lol But it's TAKI EVERYBODY! Audience claps
Justicar Karnellia Ikomari-Onu Enforcement Caldari State 453	Posted - 2014.01.06 15:01:00 - [33] - Quote Scout Registry wrote: @ OP +3. Nice work! Agreed with each and every word of this. Thoughts on "Militia Tanks are the only Problem"? Hey there. Thanks for reading all that. I don't think it's a specific tank that's the problem. It's the core game mechanics that underpin them and their associated counter-measures. The effect of the imbalance is more strongly felt because there are other overlapping factors in play all of a sudden: the reduced isk cost of militia tanks, the increased effectiveness of militia tanks against infantry and the reduced effectiveness of infantry AV fits. If one of these factors had not been modified the effect wouldn't be as pronounced - if pre-nerf swarm launchers and forges were in play today, would militia tanks with hardeners still be a problem? perhaps... What I do hope, so they don't swing the pendulum back to the other extreme that they reinforce infantry AV gradually - BUT this is going to be an issue because at the moment the patch cycle is delayed until at least february, so the detrimental effect on the game of the current mechanics will be felt for a lot longer than is needed - so they might have to hotfix something or introduce the changes in more than on step, which is a risk.
Justicar Karnellia Ikomari-Onu Enforcement Caldari State 453	Posted - 2014.01.06 15:04:00 - [34] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Scout Registry wrote: @ OP +3. Nice work! Agreed with each and every word of this. Thoughts on "Militia Tanks are the only Problem"? @ Takahiro Kashuken The only mercs in your corner are mercs like Spkr. What does this tell you about your position? That the majority that play dust are ******* idiots and AV players are terrible players I don't think insulting the majority of players will really improve this game. Also, you degrade your credibility by resorting to profanity.
Surt gods end Demon Ronin 1486	Posted - 2014.01.06 15:14:00 - [35] - Quote Right now AV means nothing. As in "Anti-vehicle" means nothing. For the fact that AV is not VD. Vehicle deterrent. There is a flaw in the "you need a TEAM" to destroy a hav, in what is underlined in OP post and I'll repeat myself, The battlefield does not stand still while 4 guys leave the team to take out one tank.
Leadfoot10 Molon Labe. Public Disorder. 178	Posted - 2014.01.06 15:14:00 - [36] - Quote Great post by the OP. Reading his account, I'm a bit surprised an assault forge or AI-aimed railgun never took him out. I'm not the best tanker in the world, that's for sure, but they got me more than a few times early in my 1.7 tanking career.
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2152	Posted - 2014.01.06 15:15:00 - [37] - Quote Justicar Karnellia wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Scout Registry wrote: @ OP +3. Nice work! Agreed with each and every word of this. Thoughts on "Militia Tanks are the only Problem"? @ Takahiro Kashuken The only mercs in your corner are mercs like Spkr. What does this tell you about your position? That the majority that play dust are ******* idiots and AV players are terrible players I don't think insulting the majority of players will really improve this game. Also, you degrade your credibility by resorting to profanity. Doesnt matter when i see the stupidty in every match to begin with Intelligence is OP
IgniteableAura Pro Hic Immortalis 443	Posted - 2014.01.06 15:17:00 - [38] - Quote I'm alright with lots of tanks on field but I think if CCP could isolate infantry from tankers it would help. Map design is going to be the most important to av balance. Gal research outpost is the Best example of this. I think all your points have merit but I also think with advanced map design it would fix a bunch of them. At the end of the day, should infantry be able to take out tanks? I think infantry av needs to be high burst low range dps. Currently av is garbage PHI Recruitment or PHIsh Tank in game Twitch
Scout Registry 324	Posted - 2014.01.06 15:22:00 - [39] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: That the majority that play dust are ***** idiots and AV players are terrible players Takahiro Kashuken wrote:** Doesnt matter when i see the stupidty in every match to begin with You're right, Takahiro. They are stupid meanies. Every last one. Now run along like a bigboy and go play outside with Spkr. The grownups need to get back to their grownup conversation.
Justicar Karnellia Ikomari-Onu Enforcement Caldari State 460	Posted - 2014.01.06 15:28:00 - [40] - Quote Leadfoot10 wrote: Great post by the OP. Reading his account, I'm a bit surprised an assault forge or AI-aimed railgun never took him out. I'm not the best tanker in the world, that's for sure, but they got me more than a few times early in my 1.7 tanking career. Hey there. Thanks for reading through my giant block of text. I admit I think the only advantage I had was that as I had spent so much time as AV (I have swarms to proficiency 4 and forge gun is on the way to proficiency 4) my reactions were very much attuned into "know thy enemy"... the forges are definitely the more "threatening" of the two AV weapons right now, if they can be called that at all... and they have to have a good height advantage and clear line of sight - I was careful to keep moving a lot when I get hit by forges... or just move behind a structure.. or just recall my vehicle (I still can't believe they haven't removed this).. I did get killed by a turret installation, but it was manned... once tanks are on the field turret installations don't seem to last long at all. :)

Justicar Karnellia Ikomari-Onu Enforcement Caldari State 466	Posted - 2014.01.06 15:31:00 - [41] - Quote IgniteableAura wrote: I'm alright with lots of tanks on field but I think if CCP could isolate infantry from tankers it would help. Map design is going to be the most important to av balance. Gal research outpost is the Best example of this. I think all your points have merit but I also think with advanced map design it would fix a bunch of them. At the end of the day, should infantry be able to take out tanks? I think infantry av needs to be high burst low range dps. Currently av is garbage Hey there. You're absolutely right. I think map design is key to balancing some of these issues. I don't know what the climate is for dropships (would be interesting to get their opinion) but I couldn't believe the range railgun tanks had when I first jumped into them. Although it is "fun"(the dirty cheap kind of fun where you're laughing a lot but know what your doing isn't really fair) just two-shotting dropships out of the sky from a mountain in the redline... I couldn't help thinking that too many maps resemble giant craters. EDIT: sorry forgot to answer your last question - I guess that's for CCP to decide as it's a core game mechanic issue - but then we'd be changing the game fundamentally as you'd have two parallel games (a game within a game so to speak) of infantry vs infantry and tanks vs tanks, sharing the same battlespace, and then if one of these populations can kill the other, but not the other way around - this would cause one population to migrate to the other (infantry would become tanks) and pretty soon you'd see no infantry at all and could just dispense with that part of the game altogether. It's a bit of the problem right now, the zero-sum game - if infantry av cannot take out a tank, just call in a tank instead.
The Attorney General 1722	Posted - 2014.01.06 15:37:00 - [42] - Quote Replying to post #3 1. I don't think that it should take more than one player to destroy a tank. I do think it should take more than one to do it quickly. The amount of time and firepower is something that needs to be debated. Quote: A dedicated Anti-vehicle player sacrifices his anti-infantry capacity for the ability to destroy vehicles. His fit is ONLY useful against vehicles, and by definition should be effective ONLY against vehicles. Unless we are talking about logis exclusively, an AV player does not sacrifice his anti infantry role, he merely minimizes it. An SMG is still a potent weapon for fending off foes, and depending on the vehicle being attacked, you might have fluxes as well. Not helpless, just not optimal. The same trade happens in tanks. In order to pop other tanks, you trade away infantry effectiveness. I would posit that everyone can agree that the blaster turret is the best for taking out infantry. It is horribly outclassed in tank v tank fighting. By running a blaster, you are making yourself vulnerable to a specific counter, just as an AV player makes themselves most vulnerable to other infantry rolling up on them. I need to get more baked before I deal with more of this. Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
Monkey MAC Lost Millennium 1467	Posted - 2014.01.06 15:38:00 - [43] - Quote Very Nicely done. Very good job of compiling all the arguements and having the patience to make a 3 post OP. However I would like to say that I think their should be stacking penalties to multiple hardners. There most definitely be one that increase the down time. But another may include the lock on speed or ROF of infantry AV engaging the hardned tank. Or finally a damage-mod esque penalty that reduces effectiveness of stacked hardners. Tanks 514 I told you, I bloody well told you. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2152	Posted - 2014.01.06 15:51:00 - [44] - Quote Scout Registry wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: That the majority that play dust are ***** idiots and AV players are terrible players Takahiro Kashuken wrote:** Doesnt matter when i see the stupidty in every match to begin with You're right, Takahiro. They are stupid meanies. Every last one. Now run along like a bigboy and go play outside with Spkr. The grownups need to get back to their grownup conversation. Grownups lol I doubt it OP cant even reply to my post, maybe because im right Intelligence is OP
Justicar Karnellia Ikomari-Onu Enforcement Caldari State 474	Posted - 2014.01.06 16:00:00 - [45] - Quote The Attorney General wrote: Replying to post #3 1. I don't think that it should take more than one player to destroy a tank. I do think it should take more than one to do it quickly. The amount of time and firepower is something that needs to be debated. Quote: A dedicated Anti-vehicle player sacrifices his anti-infantry capacity for the ability to destroy vehicles. His fit is ONLY useful against vehicles, and by definition should be effective ONLY against vehicles. Unless we are talking about logis exclusively, an AV player does not sacrifice his anti infantry role, he merely minimizes it. An SMG is still a potent weapon for fending off foes, and depending on the vehicle being attacked, you might have fluxes as well. Not helpless, just not optimal. The same trade happens in tanks. In order to pop other tanks, you trade away infantry effectiveness. I would posit that everyone can agree that the blaster turret is the best for taking out infantry. It is horribly outclassed in tank v tank fighting. By running a blaster, you are making yourself vulnerable to a specific counter, just as an AV player makes themselves most vulnerable to other infantry rolling up on them. I need to get more baked before I deal with more of this. Hey there. yep, more than one player to kill one other asset is a zero-sum game so unless we're changing fundamental game mechanics this isn't viable right now (it could be later if there are unlimited engagement sizes like in EVE online). The rest of what you mention is debatable, but this is a forum so we can debate. :) I know I can hold my own with my submachinegun - I have proficiency V on it and even extra reload speed, and if the range is right - I can defend myself , but I wouldn't class myself as anti-infantry, especially in my swarm fit - I fit two damage mods so my shields are even less than my standard build, but of course I'm not here to argue fits. It's interesting that you mention blaster tanks vs other tanks - I admit when I roamed around in my blaster tank, I died to other blaster tanks (who were just better than me) and railgun tanks, who just really destroyed me. I feel that the tank vs tank part of the implementation does seem more or less balanced - which is the problem when you go to balance an asset because of it's effect on infantry - how do you balance it without having a knock-on effect and upsetting the balance that was achieved for the tank vs tank part. I feel the solution will come less with touching at tank mechanics - even thought modules could be tweaked, but most of it will be on the infantry side with some doses of improved map design.
Monkey MAC Lost Millennium 1469	Posted - 2014.01.06 16:02:00 - [46] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Scout Registry wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: That the majority that play dust are ***** idiots and AV players are terrible players Takahiro Kashuken wrote:** Doesnt matter when i see the stupidty in every match to begin with You're right, Takahiro. They are stupid meanies. Every last one. Now run along like a bigboy and go play outside with Spkr. The grownups need to get back to their grownup conversation. Grownups lol I doubt it OP cant even reply to my post, maybe because im right Or your so wrong its kinder to allow you to believe in your stupidity. Tanks 514 I told you, I bloody well told you. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
Justicar Karnellia Ikomari-Onu Enforcement Caldari State 474	Posted - 2014.01.06 16:03:00 - [47] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Scout Registry wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: That the majority that play dust are ***** idiots and AV players are terrible players Takahiro Kashuken wrote:** Doesnt matter when i see the stupidty in every match to begin with You're right, Takahiro. They are stupid meanies. Every last one. Now run along like a bigboy and go play outside with Spkr. The grownups need to get back to their grownup conversation. Grownups lol I doubt it OP cant even reply to my post, maybe because im right There's no need to - your post indicated you didn't comprehend the purpose of the post, and your follow-up posts indicated you're not really capable of, or interested in, a constructive solution to the issue.
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 7811	Posted - 2014.01.06 16:05:00 - [48] - Quote This is a thread CCP definitely needs to to read. Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+
Surt gods end Demon Ronin 1491	Posted - 2014.01.06 16:06:00 - [49] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: This is a thread CCP definitely needs to to read. Agreed.
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 7811	Posted - 2014.01.06 16:07:00 - [50] - Quote Tweeted it to some CCP guys on Twitter. Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+

Justicar Karnellia Ikomari-Onu Enforcement Caldari State 478	Posted - 2014.01.06 16:12:00 - [51] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Tweeted it to some CCP guys on Twitter. I was hoping the wolfman would have succumbed to the lure of the bait I placed... Glazes lamb with another coat of delicious honey sauce
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2153	Posted - 2014.01.06 16:19:00 - [52] - Quote Justicar Karnellia wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Scout Registry wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: That the majority that play dust are ***** idiots and AV players are terrible players Takahiro Kashuken wrote:** Doesnt matter when i see the stupidty in every match to begin with You're right, Takahiro. They are stupid meanies. Every last one. Now run along like a bigboy and go play outside with Spkr. The grownups need to get back to their grownup conversation. Grownups lol I doubt it OP cant even reply to my post, maybe because im right There's no need to - your post indicated you didn't comprehend the purpose of the post, and your follow-up posts indicated you're not really capable of, or interested in, a constructive solution to the issue. The purpose of your post is just tanks are op and nerf them Intelligence is OP
Ghost Kaisar Titans of Phoenix Legacy Rising 1517	Posted - 2014.01.06 16:33:00 - [53] - Quote This might be the single greatest AV post in the history of Dust Get over it. If you don't play to win in FW, then you're playing for Caldari. -Patrick57 Minmatar. In Rust we trust.
Baltazar Pontain Phantom Universe Task Force Die Fremdenlegion 53	Posted - 2014.01.06 16:40:00 - [54] - Quote Applause. +3 like from me. You are absolute correct. You took your time to be very detailed and informative. I bow my head and I am a bit of frustrated that I cannot write so good as well ;)
Leadfoot10 Molon Labe. Public Disorder. 183	Posted - 2014.01.06 16:50:00 - [55] - Quote Justicar Karnellia wrote: Leadfoot10 wrote: Great post by the OP. Reading his account, I'm a bit surprised an assault forge or AI-aimed railgun never took him out. I'm not the best tanker in the world, that's for sure, but they got me more than a few times early in my 1.7 tanking career. Hey there. Thanks for reading through my giant block of text. I admit I think the only advantage I had was that as I had spent so much time as AV (I have swarms to proficiency 4 and forge gun is on the way to proficiency 4) my reactions were very much attuned into "know thy enemy"... the forges are definitely the more "threatening" of the two AV weapons right now, if they can be called that at all... and they have to have a good height advantage and clear line of sight - I was careful to keep moving a lot when I get hit by forges... or just move behind a structure.. or just recall my vehicle (I still can't believe they haven't removed this).. I did get killed by a turret installation, but it was manned... once tanks are on the field turret installations don't seem to last long at all. :) Being a former AVer certainly gives you an advantage -- I'm still getting a feel for the places they like to lurk and they've nabbed me a few times in the process. That said, I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one who has gotten nailed by an installation -- the ones in their redline are the ones that most often get my blaster tank as they are out of my range -- or the ones our blueberries hack before I can blow them up and then get counterhacked, often not long after I pass them by and give them a good shot at my weak spot. lol Thanks for your thoughtful post & response -- I appreciate it...Leadfoot
The Attorney General 1723	Posted - 2014.01.06 17:14:00 - [56] - Quote Justicar Karnellia wrote: The rest of what you mention is debatable, but this is a forum so we can debate. :) I know I can hold my own with my submachinegun - I have proficiency V on it and even extra reload speed, and if the range is right - I can defend myself , but I wouldn't class myself as anti-infantry, especially in my swarm fit - I fit two damage mods so my shields are even less than my standard build, but of course I'm not here to argue fits. This is by design. Running AV is meant to be a trade off between how effective you can be versus either class. It applies to both vehicles and infantry. This, to me also touches on the larger meta that seems to be in play, either by accident or design(hopefully design IMO), which is that the heavy suit is the best AV suit now for conventional AV and the light frames for RE play. This increases diversity because both of those suits have distinct benefits and drawbacks to their use. They also have different places to be applied. Is it an adjustment? Sure, and I am sure that people in medium frames are pissed about losing effectiveness, but I think it is better for long term game health. Anything that makes the light and heavy frames more important is good for the overall game. Justicar Karnellia wrote: It's interesting that you mention blaster tanks vs other tanks - I admit when I roamed around in my blaster tank, I died to other blaster tanks (who were just better than me) and railgun tanks, who just really destroyed me. I feel that the tank vs tank part of the implementation does seem more or less balanced - which is the problem when you go to balance an asset because of it's effect on infantry - how do you balance it without having a knock-on effect and upsetting the balance that was achieved for the tank vs tank part. I feel the solution will come less with touching at tank mechanics - even thought modules could be tweaked, but most of it will be on the infantry side with some doses of improved map design. Right now, the blaster turret is not going to win verus missiles or a railgun most of the time. Making them worse at that role isn't the worse thing in the world because it isn't what it is for. Accuracy nerfs wouldn't really impact tank v tank, but would alter the tank vs infantry balance. P.S. tanks are far from balanced, there is still a lot to be done on that front. Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
Pvt Numnutz Black Phoenix Mercenaries Legacy Rising 609	Posted - 2014.01.06 17:57:00 - [57] - Quote Nitrobeacon wrote: Justicar Karnellia wrote: Nitrobeacon wrote: I agree with most parts, but to add to this, I don't think that cycling hardeners is a big issue. First of all, doing so in a Gunnlogi requires 3 hardeners, only one of which will be used out of the three, so a Gunnlogi who uses all of their modules instead of "cycling about 1 out of 3 high slots" will utterly destroy the cycling tank, so for Gunnlogies I don't recall this an issue. Armor tankers only need 2 hardeners to cycle, but then again a guy who activates all hardeners has better survivability against another tank. To be honest cycling is just a very risky move, you are vulnerable to tank to tank 1 v 1s as he likely used both his armor hardeners while you are using 1 out of 3/2 Also cycling adds to tactics of the gameplay, cycling is used when you need constant toughness, while 2 hardeners all tanked up is used for a more "I really need to take hits right now, there's two tanks over there". It makes one require a knowledge of the surroundings, and decide whether they need to take small hits via cycling or critical hits through dual hardening. Hey there. Thanks for reading and for replying. It's true I have less experience in tank vs tank combat and the tanks I ran with the skills I had didn't permit 3 hardeners so your comments are completely valid. In the tank vs tank combat I image tactical usage of multiple hardeners might be warranted depending on your situation - I just wonder how this can be tweaked to be able to balance it out against infantry AV... Oh yes I agree, usually only one hardener is whats needed to take infantry hits like nothing (I'd say 2 is what is needed to to such a thing). Probably a buff to AV is in order. Perhaps increase all av damage by 50%. Please no. I just turned my first profit in a long time flying a dropship. Sure I'm actually down but I made 100k in profit! 50% buff is not the answer, that's just going to undo everythin and put vehicles back in 1.6 condition. I want av guys to have fun too but not at the cost of my own fun. Av should get a little more damage but I don't believe a soldier with a light weapon that costs 1/16th of my dropship should be able to solo me. Otherwise I'll be out of isk and a job. That's not to say that av shouldn't be effective, but it should be difficult to bring down proto fit vehicles. Op good post, I'm sure this will spark some good discussion. Its a vary good summary of the current imbalance with tanks.
Daxxis KANNAH Distinct Covert Initiative 575	Posted - 2014.01.06 18:12:00 - [58] - Quote Superb post and an easy read even though it was lengthy. CCP definitely should take in all of it and respond so we know if we (You OP ever so eloquently) are on the right path or if we have to change our tactics because they want these death machines to rule with impunity. I find it almost implausible that hardeners dont slow the vehicles down when that is design 101. I also find that the speed of the tanks are not in line with the rest of weaponry. If the speed is going to remain unchanged, then turrets would have to rotate even slower and AV would have to become much more deadly. As you have pointed out, tankers really dont have to plan engagements to much and they can engage and withdraw much too quickly.
LEHON Xeon Pradox XVI 4	Posted - 2014.01.06 18:36:00 - [59] - Quote Pvt Numnutz wrote: Nitrobeacon wrote: Justicar Karnellia wrote: Nitrobeacon wrote: I agree with most parts, but to add to this, I don't think that cycling hardeners is a big issue. First of all, doing so in a Gunnlogi requires 3 hardeners, only one of which will be used out of the three, so a Gunnlogi who uses all of their modules instead of "cycling about 1 out of 3 high slots" will utterly destroy the cycling tank, so for Gunnlogies I don't recall this an issue. Armor tankers only need 2 hardeners to cycle, but then again a guy who activates all hardeners has better survivability against another tank. To be honest cycling is just a very risky move, you are vulnerable to tank to tank 1 v 1s as he likely used both his armor hardeners while you are using 1 out of 3/2 Also cycling adds to tactics of the gameplay, cycling is used when you need constant toughness, while 2 hardeners all tanked up is used for a more "I really need to take hits right now, there's two tanks over there". It makes one require a knowledge of the surroundings, and decide whether they need to take small hits via cycling or critical hits through dual hardening. Hey there. Thanks for reading and for replying. It's true I have less experience in tank vs tank combat and the tanks I ran with the skills I had didn't permit 3 hardeners so your comments are completely valid. In the tank vs tank combat I image tactical usage of multiple hardeners might be warranted depending on your situation - I just wonder how this can be tweaked to be able to balance it out against infantry AV... Oh yes I agree, usually only one hardener is whats needed to take infantry hits like nothing (I'd say 2 is what is needed to to such a thing). Probably a buff to AV is in order. Perhaps increase all av damage by 50%. Please no. I just turned my first profit in a long time flying a dropship. Sure I'm actually down but I made 100k in profit! 50% buff is not the answer, that's just going to undo everythin and put vehicles back in 1.6 condition. I want av guys to have fun too but not at the cost of my own fun. Av should get a little more damage but I don't believe a soldier with a light weapon that costs 1/16th of my dropship should be able to solo me. Otherwise I'll be out of isk and a job. That's not to say that av shouldn't be effective, but it should be difficult to bring down proto fit vehicles. Op good post, I'm sure this will spark some good discussion. Its a vary good summary of the current imbalance with tanks. I understand and agree with you about the dropship issue. Those shouldn't be taken out in just one hit. However something does need to be done with tanks. I thought a massive increase in AV grenade damage might be helpful. Otherwise like the above posts said there needed to be penalties for stacking multiple hardeners. Either that or jack the cpu/pg drain on them so high that it's impossible to use more than one. Another possibility I figured would be a large increase in dropship armor and shields. Militia tanks also could use a nerf in terms of the amount of health they have. 4000 armor is absolutely ridiculous for militia tanks. If Walking Is So Good For You, Then Why Does My Mailman Look Like Jabba The Hut?
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance 365	Posted - 2014.01.06 19:10:00 - [60] - Quote Woot, well written post. CCP better have read this!! Nuff Said



Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page