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

All Channels

General Discussions

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

» 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)
Justicar Karnellia Ikomari-Onu Enforcement Caldari State 375	Posted - 2014.01.06 09:01:00 - [1] - Quote On patch night, I wearily predicted that a zero-sum vehicle game would develop quite rapidly whereby you wouldn't require infantry AV anymore simply because a tank does a better job at killing vehicles AND can also kill infantry , while an infantry AV player is no longer effective against tanks, and was never effective against infantry in the first place. The first night I saw two tanks, the next I saw five, and now it's not uncommon to see 7 tanks a side roaming about. To be fair to the argument, and for an argument to carry more weight, I decided to switch completely to HAV vehicles and see what their issues were and how this could be improved upon to make a better game for everyone involved. I ran two fits - a railgun fit and a blaster fit. The railgun fit was a sica with damage mods and hardener, while the blaster was a pre-fitted Creodron HAV I picked up in one of the promotions (forgot I even had it!) I must admit it's strange after you start playing exclusively in a tank, because it feels like you're playing a different game to everyone else. First of all, capturing points becomes irrelevant, so winning and losing become ethereal concepts. Generally you just get on with the serious business of destroying anything you can, and in a tank, you have quite a selection. I'm always on a constant lookout for other tanks, because these are the greatest threat to me, and occasionally you have to be aware of hunter-killer dropships and turret installations, but that's it. Turret installations are great fodder and within 5 minutes of a battle if I'm quick off the mark I can be well on the way to 1000 WP just from destroying installations. I lost 38 tanks during my many battles since the 1.7 patch - 30 of those were to railgun tanks and 7 to blaster tanks. I lost one tank to a manned railgun installation. I never lost a tank to infantry AV (RE's, Proximity mines, swarms/forges or AV grenades). My comments: - I run into terrain clipping issues a lot more in a vehicle. Sometimes my tank would veer into an angle when there is no noticeable terrain increase, sometimes I would just get stuck for no apparent reason and would have to recall my vehicle. This happens more often near any kind of structure. - Not once did I ever run out of ammo, making the use of ammo limits and the resultant ammo expansion packs questionable. When I'm retreating after taking a beating I will swing by a supply depot anyway, but the speed of a tank makes it trivial. The blaster tanks have a massive magazine, while the railgun magazine size seems correct. Both have about 3-4 reloads which is comparable to infantry so the only suggestion would be to reduce blaster magazine ammo totals slightly to compensate. - The reload mechanic I like, it gives a good "flow" to battle, and means you must manage both your heat, and your ammo magazine - not only must you manage when your magazine will empty, but also the rate at which you are fire to avoid over-heating - difficult if you are used to "fire until empty" infantry weapons. This doesn't need to be touched. - Vehicle skills are at a noticeable disadvantage to infantry skills simply because there are few passive bonus skills. Despite CCP mentioning they wanted to have less "access only" skills most vehicle skills are "access standard modules at lvl 1, advanced at lvl 3 and proto at lvl 5". A lot of infantry skills don't work this way and this give vehicle skill investment less inherent value. - Railgun tanks are particularly vicious because even through hardeners they can do incredible damage. It resembles infantry combat in many ways because if you get the jump on another tank in a railfit, you can usually do tremendous damage and in many cases outright destroy him if you do a quick, accurate alpha strike before the opponent can react. There are issues with railgun tanks - Although it was "fun" two-shotting dropships out of the sky from across the map, it didn't feel particularly fair. I feel a lot of this comes down to map design, as you can just sit on the redline and bombard the map with impunity with little chance of being hurt yourself (apart from another rail tank!). Maps need to stop having elevated terrain surrounding the burnzone and should have a redline below the "sea-level" of the burnzone to prevent this kind of behaviour. This means if a tank wants to stay in the redline, he can, but he won't be able to hit anything - again I iterate this is not a tank issue, but a map issue. - My hardeners seem to stay on for a long time, giving me a big window for my hardeners and/or my damage mods. This needs to be reduced. When I activated my damage mods, I had enough left in my cycle to destroy an enemy tank, switch position, take out a turret, an LAV and then engage another tank. They also activate independently so if I have multiple hardeners and/or damage modes I can overlap them to almost have a "permanent" cycle of modules. This makes me less picky about choosing my engagements. This is a broken game mechanic. In so far as other tanks are concerned the choice of when to activate your hardener is more tactical, as other tanks have the same capacity as you - manoeuvarability, damage output and they also have hardeners - against infantry it's another matter entirely, but I've covered this in the next point. (continued below)
Justicar Karnellia Ikomari-Onu Enforcement Caldari State 375	Posted - 2014.01.06 09:01:00 - [2] - Quote - Infantry are irrelevant in a tank. I never lost a tank to infantry and this should be a concern - I'm not an experienced tanker. I had a few ocassions where I was damaged by multiple forge guns but simply moved out of line of sight to regnerate, activated a hardener and retreated, or just exploited the recall mechanic. Infantry felt more like an annoyance at the best of times. Swarm launchers don't even deserve a mention. As soon as you'd see the signature trail of missiles, you could just turn a corner, move out of line of sight, or retreat out of lock range, at full speed, all the while firing at the player. If they were close, I tried what I've seen many people do now - just exit your HAV and shoot them with your assault rifle - they have no anti-infantry capacity!!! When hunting infantry in a more general sense, you realise, especially in a blaster tank, that they die quickly, don't move as quickly as you, and have few options to engage you. Hitting infantry in a railgun tank is harder work unless you're at a distance - I admit I wasn't so great at shooting infantry with my rail fit and am constantly in awe at railgun tankers that take out infantry running from cover to cover, this is just great skill. - Amazingly, I got to experience "Jihad LAV" on two ocassions. On one occassion the LAV hit me, but I think because I had just gone over a hill, he didn't build up enough velocity to explode and trigger the payload. I only realised it WAS a Jihad LAV once I destroyed it and got the signature "+50 kill, +40 LAV, +5 equipment, +5 equipment, +5 equipment, +5 equipment". 2nd time I saw him coming and one shotted him with my railgun before he got close. Again, the kill points told me what I'd just destroyed. It's astounding these even exist as they are very much touch and go (no pun intended) but go a long way to showing the few options infantry have left to engage HAV's. - The times my tank was destroyed, I sometimes managed to jump out at the last second to avoid death. Somehow this doesn't feel so "clean". In an open-top LAV it makes sense that you can jump out quickly enough to avoid destruction but in a HAV less so. I'm not an advocate of forcing a driver to "go down with the ship" but the exit shouldn't be "instant". It's not critical, but it could be looked at for alternatives. - Lastly, the recall mechanic. It becomes second nature to exploit this. Apart from the couple of times I got stuck on terrain, I used this often. If your tank was badly damaged, you can turn a corner, recall, and voila! Your tank is now safe. Wait for the danger to pass, then summon it again at your leisure. This needs to be fixed, it's a clear exploit with many viable solutions. To summarise, it has been an interesting experience but now that I understand both sides of the equation, the arguments remain damning. There is no way, in its current state, that the situation with HAV's is balanced: - First of all, their skill system is clearly lacking and doesn't reward players for heavy skill investment due to the massive absence of passive skills (especially where HAV's are concerned). - Secondly, the redline needs to be looked at. I don't want to mention railgun tanks specifically because its their innate range that gives them an advantage, but their range wouldn't be an issue if there was a different map design philosophy in Dust 514. At the moment, giant mountain-ringed maps with no hindrances to line of sight are commonplace. This means that railgun tanks profit from this to the detriment of anything that can render to be shot at, notably other vehicles- HAV's, LAV's and ESPECIALLY Dropships. - Lastly, but definitely not leastly: infantry and infantry AV more specifically. As a former dedicated AV player before the patch I felt something was wrong, but now it's pretty clear that the situation is skewed - no reasonable person can attest to the situation being balanced. In the best case scenario, Infantry AV were an annoyance while I was in my tank, and their weapons woefully ineffective. The incredible speed which tanks have, and the access to modules that render them nigh-on invincible to infantry AV for the time it takes them to retreat all the way to the other side of the map have no counter, if you have the skills to fit multiple hardeners you risk very little as you can cycle them indefinitely. My tactics when dealing with infantry AV were so mechanical they became 2nd nature after a few matches: ->Player hits you with Swarm/Forge : if it does serious damage activate a hardener. You now have around half a minute to go wherever you like with no risk, as long as you don't run into another tank, or you can kill the player who's annoying you. The player will sometimes try to run after you, but he has stamina and you don't, so you outrun him easily and can move out of line of sight before he's even targeted you again. Nothing can slow me down when I'm in a tank as there is no stamina issue, so no matter how dedicated an infantry AV player may be, he just can't catch me, as even at running speed my base speed exceeds him. This game mechanic needs improvement. ->If you're confident no other infantry are around: just get out and shoot him - if he's a swarm/forge user he only has a sidearm. Swarm launcher users often stack damage mods so have very little base ehp, they go down in half a second to most sidearms. ->If you've taken serious damage from multiple co-ordinated AV users - just go around a corner, get out of your tank and spend 5 seconds recalling your HAV! Now your tank is safe, you can find somewhere quiet to re-summon OR you can just use your current light weapon of choice to mop-up the infantry AV players (remember they have no anti-infantry capacity), then you can go back to killing infantry. The recall mechanic needs to be hot-fixed right now. (last part below)
Justicar Karnellia Ikomari-Onu Enforcement Caldari State 375	Posted - 2014.01.06 09:02:00 - [3] - Quote Before we go further, lets put to rest some of the fallacies that seem to plague this debate: 1) "It should require a team to take down a tank" - This a problem for many reasons: a) This COULD be a viable argument if there were no set limits to engagements as there are in EVE online. Dust 514 has (for now) a 16 vs 16 engagement limit, so as soon as an asset provides you with a numerical advantage (be it soft or hard) then that asset is the most valuable on the battlefield. If a HAV requires multiple AV users to neutralise (soft numerical advantage), then the HAV provides numerical superiority on the battlefield as it only requires one player to operate. If a HAV required multiple users to operate or if dedicated infantry AV could neutralise a HAV on a one on one basis, this would not be an issue. This is not currently the case. b) AV stands for "Anti-vehicle". 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. If another asset provies you with the ability to destroy vehicles AND infantry, and with greater effectiveness (and similar cost) than a dedicated anti-vehicle infantry unit then naturally you will gravitate to that asset, especially if your anti-vehicle capacity is ineffective, as is currently the case. This is the creation of a zero-sum game and this is what is occuring now. I've translated this analogy to make it dropsuit-centric so people can grasp how serious this issue is here: You have a heavy suit, that can kill other heavies AND all other types of dropsuit - it can be countered by a light suit, lets call it the "anti-heavy" light suit. Now the "anti-heavy" light suit is not really effective on its own against the Heavy suit, even though that IS it's intended role, BUT it can also be killed by every other suit that exists, and it's not at all effective against other suits. To take down a heavy suit you need two or more of these "anti-heavy" light suits to work in co-ordinated precision, timing their shots, taking cover, reloading asymetrically to keep the pressure up all the while avoiding the fire of the heavy suit AND other suits (again, from which they cannot defend themselves effectively). After doing this for a while, the players running "anti-heavy" light suits figured out that they could run a Heavy suit, which is more effective at killing other heavy suits than the "anti-heavy" suit AND they could engage all the other types of suits, without even resorting to teamwork - it's from here on out that everyone in the community came to the forums to complain about "Heavy suit spam" - since in every match it was not uncommon to see up to 7 heavy suits per side, completely dominating the map and making all other suits irrelevant. 2) "My tank is expensive so should be hard to kill" - Only a few people still spout this argument, but thankfully this is disappearing, and should not be an argument for either vehicles or infantry. An infantry proto suit can be prohibitively expensive, yet is not hard to kill. Price of an asset should never be a measure of power on the battlefield - it should be based on player skill, character skills, fittings and most importantly, game mechanics. 3) "I have to invest lots of skill points in vehicles, and you don't have to invest much in AV to kill me" - There is partial merit to this argument. After skilling into vehicles after the patch, I can attest to the fact that HAV users get shafted on the skill tree. I can't speak for other trees, but for the HAV tree, skills which give you a passive bonus are rare - most of them being "skill 1 access to STD, skill 3 to ADV, skill 5 to proto modules". Having said that, skills should not be the only factor when in play - game mechanics should be primordial. 4) NEW "Swarm launchers were always meant to counter light vehicles, and forge guns should be for heavy vehicles" - Yes, This appeared only last week, but lets deal with it here for the sake of argument. First of all, infantry weapons aren't classed by their opposing suit frame, they are classed by their damage type, range and fitting slot. A shotgun can kill a heavy frame just as well as a medium frame. A nova knife is the same. A forge gun can also kill all types of suits as well as a scrambler pistol or a rail rifle - they have different ranges, damage attributes and resultant damage will depend on the fitting and attributes of the suit, as well as engagement range, the character skills and real life skills of both players. Classing Anti-vehicle weapons by their opposing class of vehicles would imply a) They are ONLY effective against this type of vehicle b) Their effectiveness is optimised against this type of vehicle c) All HAV vehicles are homogenous and all LAV vehicles are homogenous d) All infantry have access to each type of AV weapon If you take the above list sequentially, the are so many exceptions to each rule that it quickly falls apart. Forge guns are also effective against infantry and vehicles, and are effective at engaging light vehicles and dropships. Swarm launchers aren't so good against dropships even though these can be classed as a light vehicle. Forge guns can only be wielded by one particular suit frame, HAV's are not homogenous,etc. The solutions to the issues above are diverse and many good ones have been proposed already in the "feedback/requests" sections of the forum, which unfortunately, few people read - everything from different ammo types on infantry AV, to webifiers, going by vehicle capacitors, turret turning speeds, linking mulitple hardeners, etc. Ulysses Knapse actually has an impressive 4 part post on lots of vehicle changes which would benefit both vehicle and infantry alike here https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1609 Nails a leg of honeyed lamb to the foot of the post and backs away slowly
LuckyLuke Wargan HavoK Core RISE of LEGION 258	Posted - 2014.01.06 09:23:00 - [4] - Quote Wow, nice one man in depth and unbiased for once, loved it. "Cry HavoK!, and let slip the dogs of war!" -Medical/Intel Logibro and Swarm Commando-
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 7524	Posted - 2014.01.06 10:19:00 - [5] - Quote Fantastic post. Agree completely. Level 7 Forum Warrior Lenin of the glorious armoured revolution Gallente FW - 'Turalyon'
Kira Takizawa 2Shitz 1Giggle 83	Posted - 2014.01.06 10:28:00 - [6] - Quote Why can't more people be like this!
Nitrobeacon Freek Coalition Freek Alliance 193	Posted - 2014.01.06 10:52:00 - [7] - Quote 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.
Justicar Karnellia Ikomari-Onu Enforcement Caldari State 401	Posted - 2014.01.06 11:01:00 - [8] - Quote 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...
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command Caldari State 376	Posted - 2014.01.06 11:02:00 - [9] - Quote Very well done. Thumbs up to you.
PEW JACKSON Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance 165	Posted - 2014.01.06 11:14:00 - [10] - Quote 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. Learned something new . I run dual hardeners and a booster. Would having both hardeners active give me more ehp than to use 1 then my booster to cycle the other? Dead on the ground.... Think I made a wrong turn :/

Reign Omega BurgezzE.T.F Public Disorder. 83	Posted - 2014.01.06 11:17:00 - [11] - Quote Great summary of the current vehicle issue.
Nitrobeacon Freek Coalition Freek Alliance 195	Posted - 2014.01.06 11:17:00 - [12] - Quote 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%.
Nitrobeacon Freek Coalition Freek Alliance 196	Posted - 2014.01.06 11:20:00 - [13] - Quote PEW JACKSON 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. Learned something new . I run dual hardeners and a booster. Would having both hardeners active give me more ehp than to use 1 then my booster to cycle the other? Yes, two hardeners completely negates damage at the considerable cost of cooldown/exposed duration. Cycling is a good idea though, so you have the right idea, more so vs infantry. Edit: Reading your question again, I'd say that continued cycling is a good idea, but risky too (as I said before), remember that if another tank gets you off your guard, you will be at a big disadvantage if he has more than two hardeners active.
PEW JACKSON Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance 165	Posted - 2014.01.06 11:28:00 - [14] - Quote @ OP, do you think WP for AV would help the problem with tanks? In concept I think it's the same as 4 guys with mlt repair tools on a heavy. Solo the heavy will die due to concentrated fire and week reps. 1 repairer and he has a little boost to his effectiveness. Add 4 mlt repair tools, and that heavy will start wrecking face. I think the problem is AV spreading themselves too thin. I understand the disparity between needing 1 pilot, but 2-4 to deal with him. Wouldn't it be easier to give AV more incentive to group up? 35 WP for every 1000 ehp dmg dealt to enemy installations and vehicles. Even if no tanks die, players will run av more because of the WP payout and now the potential kill shot that they may get. I've run AV squads before and there's not much incentive for me to do so other than having little to show for it. I've been in squads running dual breach forges that completely wrecked tank squads. Same with dual proto swarms & flux combo. Reason we don't see more of this? They don't make much of a profit. Vehicles can now profit with their roles. How about we do the same for the counter. Dead on the ground.... Think I made a wrong turn :/
Justicar Karnellia Ikomari-Onu Enforcement Caldari State 411	Posted - 2014.01.06 11:35:00 - [15] - Quote PEW JACKSON wrote: @ OP, do you think WP for AV would help the problem with tanks? In concept I think it's the same as 4 guys with mlt repair tools on a heavy. Solo, the heavy will die due to concentrated fire and weak reps. 1 repairer and he has a little boost to his effectiveness. Add 4 mlt repair tools, and that heavy will start wrecking face. I think the problem is AV spreading themselves too thin. I understand the disparity between needing 1 pilot, but 2-4 to deal with him. Wouldn't it be easier to give AV more incentive to group up? 35 WP for every 1000 ehp dmg dealt to enemy installations and vehicles. Even if no tanks die, players will run av more because of the WP payout and now the potential kill shot that they may get. I've run AV squads before and there's not much incentive for me to do so other than having little to show for it. I've been in squads running dual breach forges that completely wrecked tank squads. Same with dual proto swarms & flux combo. Reason we don't see more of this? They don't make much of a profit. Vehicles can now profit with their roles. How about we do the same for the counter. Hey there - thanks for reading the long post and replying. I think your suggestion is a valid one, and if I remember correctly, CCP wolfman stated that is something he wanted to get onto the cards - getting WP as a reward for damaging a vehicle, even if you don't outright kill it will surely force more people to run AV fits, as long as it's implemented to avoid WP-farming. I think it won't address the entire problem though - with more people running AV fits there is the chance that two or more AV users are in the vicinity of a HAV which is usually enough to neutralise it, if not outright destroy it if they sync themselves correctly BUT it still won't address the zero-sum game. If it still takes more than one infantry AV to destroy a HAV, a tank will do a much better job, and lets not forget the tank is completely viable against infantry, which is not the case for an AV infantry user.
PEW JACKSON Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance 169	Posted - 2014.01.06 11:41:00 - [16] - Quote Justicar Karnellia wrote: Hey there - thanks for reading the long post and replying. I think your suggestion is a valid one, and if I remember correctly, CCP wolfman stated that is something he wanted to get onto the cards - getting WP as a reward for damaging a vehicle, even if you don't outright kill it will surely force more people to run AV fits, as long as it's implemented to avoid WP-farming. I think it won't address the entire problem though - with more people running AV fits there is the chance that two or more AV users are in the vicinity of a HAV which is usually enough to neutralise it, if not outright destroy it if they sync themselves correctly BUT it still won't address the zero-sum game. If it still takes more than one infantry AV to destroy a HAV, a tank will do a much better job, and lets not forget the tank is completely viable against infantry, which is not the case for an AV infantry user. I think swarms should get a 30 dmg per missile buff along with a 100% speed buff. It'd be a big number if I had to count all the times tanks survived being out in the open due to slow swarms.... Target sighted, target locked, proceeds to fire 3 volleys. Tank gets hit by 1 and makes it to cover before the third hits due to slow swarm speed. Dead on the ground.... Think I made a wrong turn :/
Justicar Karnellia Ikomari-Onu Enforcement Caldari State 417	Posted - 2014.01.06 11:45:00 - [17] - Quote PEW JACKSON wrote: Justicar Karnellia wrote: Hey there - thanks for reading the long post and replying. I think your suggestion is a valid one, and if I remember correctly, CCP wolfman stated that is something he wanted to get onto the cards - getting WP as a reward for damaging a vehicle, even if you don't outright kill it will surely force more people to run AV fits, as long as it's implemented to avoid WP-farming. I think it won't address the entire problem though - with more people running AV fits there is the chance that two or more AV users are in the vicinity of a HAV which is usually enough to neutralise it, if not outright destroy it if they sync themselves correctly BUT it still won't address the zero-sum game. If it still takes more than one infantry AV to destroy a HAV, a tank will do a much better job, and lets not forget the tank is completely viable against infantry, which is not the case for an AV infantry user. I think swarms should get a 30 dmg per missile buff along with a 100% speed buff. It'd be a big number if I had to count all the times tanks survived being out in the open due to slow swarms.... Target sighted, target locked, proceeds to fire 3 volleys. Tank gets hit by 1 and makes it to cover before the third hits due to slow swarm speed. Completely agree - the numbers could be debated ad infinitum but what you say is entirely correct. By the time a swarm launcher starts doing damage on the tank, he's already out of harm's way OR the driver got out and shot him (This is still my favourite counter for a one on one encounter with a swarm user)..... there are so many fixes... slowing down tank native speed, having the activation of a hardener slow you down so you can't just run away, webifier grenades, slowing effect on swarm impact, capacitors, etc. but yes it's one way to go.
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2150	Posted - 2014.01.06 11:59:00 - [18] - Quote So lets do this Ammo is fine, i run out a fair bit when using blaster, i need to restock 2-3 times in an active game Vehicle skills have always sucked, we lost the PG/CPU/Shield HP/Armor HP skills and also lost passive mods to boot Its a railgun, a large railgun at that it is going to have more power than a handheld FG because it requires a tank to use, it is supposed to be high damage long range like a sniper rifle except for infantry its for vehicles and the map is small because 16v16 when the entire district is 5km by 5km and maps will have mountains and elevation because ya know flat boring maps are boring we are supposed to be on a planet. Also elevation is so that the enemy cant just shoot into the spawn areas Hardeners are fine, mlt have a 60-90sec cooldown and thats a pretty ******* big window, if i cycle 3 hardeners it means i only ever use 1 at that time and leaves me open if i get hit my AV/tank with enough dmg to stop my regen but also it means no speed mod/dmg mod/extender/booster and gives me limited options for a % increase in defence Infantry sound static, a good AV player will chase your ass down, they dont stand still and take a shot and let you move away, FG are far from irrelevent and hit hard and fast, 2 breach will take you back to the MCC, swarms are mostly idiots because they keep shooting me with my hardeners on against a shield tank, they are much more effective with armor - I find most AV is fine except the PLC but its the players Jihad jeep is a tactic for bad players who cant use the AV that is availible to them, they have got me maybe once or twice Recall is fine, unless you want me to swap at a depot and spawn back in with the tank at full hp in an instant TBH thats bad AV, its the players ive had good AV chase me around the map and put me away and out of the game Teamwork to take out a tank - If 2 proto level AV cant take out a tank then they are idiots frankly My tank is expenisive is now my AV fit is expenisive so AV is trying to balance around ISK now Ive got an alt with a MLT tank, my MLT tank does fine and AV doesnt have a clue on how to take it out The main point is that for the past 6+months AV has been used to soloing tanks, they still think they can do it, they still shoot you with your hardeners on, they stand in front of you and spam a swarm launcher at a shield tank No AV uses a LAV to get around, they still do it on foot they still think they can lock on with a swarm from 400m away, they still sit up high if possible with no risk, they are not prepared to do what needs to be done to get a vehicle kill but also they arent even happy if they deny the tank an area of the map Area denial is key on some maps to get a win or even just to defend your squad but AV doesnt want that they want to kill it outright every time and are never happy and refuse to work together, those which do work together killing vehicles are fine and they do it on a regular basis The mindset hasnt changed and everytime AV got a buff and it got easier for them they didnt need to think when they had to take out a vehicle now its all changed and AV hasnt adapated and currently wont adapt Intelligence is OP
Blaze Ashra Ametat Security Amarr Empire 75	Posted - 2014.01.06 12:11:00 - [19] - Quote I like this thread but I have one issue.Vehicle modules affect all vehicles, not just HAV's. Nerfing the hardeners would effect LAV's and dropships as well, and we don' t have anywhere near as large a PG/CPU pool as HAV's.
Justicar Karnellia Ikomari-Onu Enforcement Caldari State 426	Posted - 2014.01.06 12:21:00 - [20] - Quote Blaze Ashra wrote: I like this thread but I have one issue.Vehicle modules affect all vehicles, not just HAV's. Nerfing the hardeners would effect LAV's and dropships as well, and we don' t have anywhere near as large a PG/CPU pool as HAV's. You're absolutely right - the intent is just to illustrate the infantry/HAV discrepancies. I don't pretend to know anything about dropships or LAV fitting, and of course, nerfing modules that are used by multiple assets to balance only one asset is always a hard-sell as it has such knock-on effects. Hardeners are necessary in current tank on tank combat - they introduce an element of skill and tactical timing is key. I think the ultimate balancing will be through other means.

Scottie MaCallan Krusual Covert Operators Minmatar Republic 47	Posted - 2014.01.06 12:28:00 - [21] - Quote y'all need to step up yr jihad jeep game, with a little bit of recon, good use of terrain, and some proper planning you can nail tanks even if they've seen you coming. I can get multiple tank kills per game (enemy deployment permitting) when I use my jihad jeeps. but yea, it'd be cool if swarms + AV nades were actually useful still. Sure I can chase off a tank and get them out of my AO for a bit , but maps are big and the shortened range means unless someone else is there to catch them during their retreat, it's not a kill, and I get no WP, so jihad jeep it is for now. it's more challenging and fun than AV infantry anyway, whatevr. also for my tanker alt, all I have to say is, railguns do work, missiles don't do enough alpha for the short firing burst & long reload, and blasters overheat too quickly, but are still mostly effective. Also, kids, don't be dumb, if it's a gunnlogi, shield tank that ****, if it's a madrugar, go armor. Also when I'm in a tank only thing that actually scares me is railgun-style hits, so rail tanks, forge guns, and rail installations. anything else, I just go hardeners and then look around. I sat in front of an AV with swarms+nades and waited for him to run out of ammo then nailed him with my railgun once.
R F Gyro Clones 4u 898	Posted - 2014.01.06 12:51:00 - [22] - Quote Great post. +1 RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
Bayeth Mal OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 0	Posted - 2014.01.06 12:51:00 - [23] - Quote My main forges and my alt tanks. I've been working with some people to show how fairly straight forward strategies can work wonders. Join chat channel "the sentinels". Formed by Morte Deamor (spelling) we're training in combining AV with vehicles and frontline infantry to win both the vehicle and objective battle. And it can be a hell of a lot of fun Edit: Forgot to say this was a great post! I disagree in a couple of areas but mostly good stuff!
Justicar Karnellia Ikomari-Onu Enforcement Caldari State 433	Posted - 2014.01.06 13:04:00 - [24] - Quote Bayeth Mal wrote: My main forges and my alt tanks. I've been working with some people to show how fairly straight forward strategies can work wonders. Join chat channel "the sentinels". Formed by Morte Deamor (spelling) we're training in combining AV with vehicles and frontline infantry to win both the vehicle and objective battle. And it can be a hell of a lot of fun Edit: Forgot to say this was a great post! I disagree in a couple of areas but mostly good stuff! Thanks for stopping by - it was a bit long. Feel free to disagree, I am not an expert tanker by any means but my main angle was the HAV vs infantry AV ... of course as long as it's constructive it can only help the game get better.
Ninjanomyx Imperfects Negative-Feedback 526	Posted - 2014.01.06 13:32:00 - [25] - Quote Justicar Karnellia wrote: Bayeth Mal wrote: My main forges and my alt tanks. I've been working with some people to show how fairly straight forward strategies can work wonders. Join chat channel "the sentinels". Formed by Morte Deamor (spelling) we're training in combining AV with vehicles and frontline infantry to win both the vehicle and objective battle. And it can be a hell of a lot of fun Edit: Forgot to say this was a great post! I disagree in a couple of areas but mostly good stuff! Thanks for stopping by - it was a bit long. Feel free to disagree, I am not an expert tanker by any means but my main angle was the HAV vs infantry AV ... of course as long as it's constructive it can only help the game get better. You get a High Five & an A for Effort
PADDEHATPIGEN BurgezzE.T.F Public Disorder. 116	Posted - 2014.01.06 13:55:00 - [26] - Quote Love the post I do have a few things to ad. I start by saying that I have NO HAV skills at all so I only use militia HAV's, I fitted them with BPO's, and militia scanner, dmg mods and speed mods. My sica cost 59.565 ISK to restock. My soma cost 71.475 ISK to restock. On the other hand I have 31+ mill. SP invested in infantry skills and I'm fully trained in USELESS swarms and av nades. My AV fit is all proto and cost 117.930 ISK to restock. There IS something wrong.
Justicar Karnellia Ikomari-Onu Enforcement Caldari State 448	Posted - 2014.01.06 14:21:00 - [27] - Quote PADDEHATPIGEN wrote: Love the post I do have a few things to ad. I start by saying that I have NO HAV skills at all so I only use militia HAV's, I fitted them with BPO's, and militia scanner, dmg mods, hardeners and speed mods. My sica cost 59.565 ISK to restock. My soma cost 71.475 ISK to restock. On the other hand I have 31+ mill. SP invested in infantry skills and I'm fully trained in USELESS swarms and av nades. My AV fit is all proto and cost 117.930 ISK to restock. There IS something wrong. Hey there. Thanks for stopping by. The skills argument definitely has some merit, but I'm always reticent to start using the total cost of an asset as an argument for balance even though it has gone some way to producing the "spam" effect in play. The counter to a an in-game threat doesn't necessarily need to flow through something that is of similar price - a proto infantry suit can be brought down by a skillfull militia player BUT the counter must be effective, if that is indeed it's only role. That is not presently the case. So yes, you correctly highlight one of the issues.
calisk galern BurgezzE.T.F Public Disorder. 1595	Posted - 2014.01.06 14:25:00 - [28] - Quote Scottie MaCallan wrote: y'all need to step up yr jihad jeep game, with a little bit of recon, good use of terrain, and some proper planning you can nail tanks even if they've seen you coming. I can get multiple tank kills per game (enemy deployment permitting) when I use my jihad jeeps. but yea, it'd be cool if swarms + AV nades were actually useful still. Sure I can chase off a tank and get them out of my AO for a bit , but maps are big and the shortened range means unless someone else is there to catch them during their retreat, it's not a kill, and I get no WP, so jihad jeep it is for now. it's more challenging and fun than AV infantry anyway, whatevr. also for my tanker alt, all I have to say is, railguns do work, missiles don't do enough alpha for the short firing burst & long reload, and blasters overheat too quickly, but are still mostly effective. Also, kids, don't be dumb, if it's a gunnlogi, shield tank that ****, if it's a madrugar, go armor. Also when I'm in a tank only thing that actually scares me is railgun-style hits, so rail tanks, forge guns, and rail installations. anything else, I just go hardeners and then look around. I sat in front of an AV with swarms+nades and waited for him to run out of ammo then nailed him with my railgun once. the problem with ji had jeeps is the sheer broken physics in the game, I lose more jihad jeeps to random glitches then anything else. for example more frequently then i'm happy with my jihad jeep will just freeze when going into a specific building structure, once i was frozen at an angle, but my only option is to get out of the vehicle but if i do i get flung at full speed as if I had gotten out of a vehicle moving full speed, quite frequently killing me. another popular glitch is when you hit the tank instead of blowing up you drive right over him. although annoying I do get some impressive death spin air tricks, which can be quite fun to watch. sometimes the vehicles just randomly explode when going over hills, that's fun =/
Scottie MaCallan Krusual Covert Operators Minmatar Republic 50	Posted - 2014.01.06 14:29:00 - [29] - Quote for devil's advocate's sake, it's relatively easy, or at least feasible to take out a 60-70k MLT tank fit with wykromi swarms (assuming you plan it right, get off all yr AV nades and at least 2-3 swarms, which I know I can do in my std. AV fit). on the other hand, my 329k gunnlogi or 297k madrugar fits? probably a little more durable, and they should be EDIT: also yea, there are some glitches with jihad jeeps stuttering, it seems to be something to do with the equipment (RE's) moving so fast, since i never encounter it normally driving. But I've never had my jeeps randomly explode, even when colliding with structures, or getting shot from the front sometimes (PROTIP: I also keep my RE's on the front wheel arches, so the side, not the front)
Scout Registry 321	Posted - 2014.01.06 14:37:00 - [30] - Quote +3 Agreed. Each and every word of this. Nice work, OP.

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

xSynnx x Requiem of Shadows DEADSPACE SOCIETY 22	Posted - 2014.01.06 19:18:00 - [61] - Quote Justicar Karnellia wrote: AV stands for "Anti-vehicle". 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. If another asset provies you with the ability to destroy vehicles AND infantry, and with greater effectiveness (and similar cost) than a dedicated anti-vehicle infantry unit then naturally you will gravitate to that asset, especially if your anti-vehicle capacity is ineffective, as is currently the case. This is the creation of a zero-sum game and this is what is occuring now. I've translated this analogy to make it dropsuit-centric so people can grasp how serious this issue is here: You have a heavy suit, that can kill other heavies AND all other types of dropsuit - it can be countered by a light suit, lets call it the "anti-heavy" light suit. Now the "anti-heavy" light suit is not really effective on its own against the Heavy suit, even though that IS it's intended role, BUT it can also be killed by every other suit that exists, and it's not at all effective against other suits. To take down a heavy suit you need two or more of these "anti-heavy" light suits to work in co-ordinated precision, timing their shots, taking cover, reloading asymetrically to keep the pressure up all the while avoiding the fire of the heavy suit AND other suits (again, from which they cannot defend themselves effectively). After doing this for a while, the players running "anti-heavy" light suits figured out that they could run a Heavy suit, which is more effective at killing other heavy suits than the "anti-heavy" suit AND they could engage all the other types of suits, without even resorting to teamwork - it's from here on out that everyone in the community came to the forums to complain about "Heavy suit spam" - since in every match it was not uncommon to see up to 7 heavy suits per side, completely dominating the map and making all other suits irrelevant. Slightly off topic, but i think something that could help both of these would be to add AV damage bonus to heavy suits, but remove the ability to substitute a heavy weapon for anything other than a heavy weapon. I've encountered this a lot recently, its just really really hard to go toe to toe vs a heavy with an infantry weapon. Commando's are fine with me, they have low slot layouts and less base shield and armor HP then standard heavy suits. But a proto heavy with more base HP and more fitting slots just makes a really really durable suit that usually takes multiple suits to take down. TL;DR Make heavy suits better at AV but take away their ability to use infantry weapons, aside from sidearms.
Delta 749 Kestrel Reconnaissance 2410	Posted - 2014.01.06 19:25:00 - [62] - Quote This guy gets it Im not drunk, the planet just happens to be especially wobbly today.
dreth longbow Bank of DUST 514 20	Posted - 2014.01.06 19:36:00 - [63] - Quote This is a good post and yes tanks as they stand now are a problem which could be solved many ways, even a quick hot fix to limit 2 tanks on a field at a time until they get it fixed (oh my did I say that?) Any way I have been frustrated on the number of tanks on the field and the durability of them and have been trying to find ways to counter them. I tried jihad jeeps with all their problems, they are ok, but did not work out all that good for me after the first few days since tankers know about them and infantry can blow you up with well placed shots. So I looked at a different option that I now enjoy using. Some of you tankers may recognize me as the guy who blew you up. Proxi mines are worthless, but RE are wonderful when combined with flux. I will run up to a tank put 5+ RE's on him, toss him some flux, oops their goes his shields, he starts to run-push button and good buy. This is alot of fun even though you die 3 out of 4 times trying to get to the tank, but with practice it works great and is cheap. I can see a lot of shotgunners with their skill already learned being good at this. Now this does not kill all tanks, but the majority of them will be killed (I have only had 3 get away in the last 2.5 weeks and I am sure they messed their pants and have killed maybe 20 sometimes 2 or 3 in a match). If just 2 guys were to employ this against tanks then we could cause the tanks to be less god like and go back to tactics. Flaws with this are simple if 2 or 3 tanks are running in a pack or infantry are supporting tanks you get noticed and die VERY quickly also you need a spawn point close by to the tank so you are not running all over the map looking for a tank. I usually get killed by a tank in my infantry fit and only then go looking for them with my RE+flux fit. I know this is not a fix to tanks, but it may help infantry not feel so neutered.
CrotchGrab 360 The Men In The Mirror 1346	Posted - 2014.01.06 19:39:00 - [64] - Quote I must disagree with your findings however for I have noticed a lot of people have stepped their AV game up lately!
Matoncito Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 3	Posted - 2014.01.07 08:50:00 - [65] - Quote How dare you give a balanced, unbiased review of the current situation - shame on you....
The Minoan ManiacArchon Max-Pain-inc Dark Taboo 11	Posted - 2014.01.07 09:15:00 - [66] - Quote Good work OP... Great report... +1
True Adamance Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 5422	Posted - 2014.01.07 09:15:00 - [67] - Quote I used to tank....now I don't because of no skill scrubs spamming tanks......weird world huh? To a Texan like you, a hero is some type of weird sandwich, not some nut who takes on three Gunlogi. Reference = ISK
Korvin Lomont United Pwnage Service RISE of LEGION 439	Posted - 2014.01.07 10:58:00 - [68] - Quote dreth longbow wrote: This is a good post and yes tanks as they stand now are a problem which could be solved many ways, even a quick hot fix to limit 2 tanks on a field at a time until they get it fixed (oh my did I say that?) Any way I have been frustrated on the number of tanks on the field and the durability of them and have been trying to find ways to counter them. I tried jihad jeeps with all their problems, they are ok, but did not work out all that good for me after the first few days since tankers know about them and infantry can blow you up with well placed shots. So I looked at a different option that I now enjoy using. Some of you tankers may recognize me as the guy who blew you up. Proxi mines are worthless, but RE are wonderful when combined with flux. I will run up to a tank put 5+ RE's on him, toss him some flux, oops their goes his shields, he starts to run-push button and good buy. This is alot of fun even though you die 3 out of 4 times trying to get to the tank, but with practice it works great and is cheap. I can see a lot of shotgunners with their skill already learned being good at this. Now this does not kill all tanks, but the majority of them will be killed (I have only had 3 get away in the last 2.5 weeks and I am sure they messed their pants and have killed maybe 20 sometimes 2 or 3 in a match). If just 2 guys were to employ this against tanks then we could cause the tanks to be less god like and go back to tactics. Flaws with this are simple if 2 or 3 tanks are running in a pack or infantry are supporting tanks you get noticed and die VERY quickly also you need a spawn point close by to the tank so you are not running all over the map looking for a tank. I usually get killed by a tank in my infantry fit and only then go looking for them with my RE+flux fit. I know this is not a fix to tanks, but it may help infantry not feel so neutered. I use a similar tactic but I use AV nades, I am not sure how flux work on RE's in FW ^^ and AV nades explode on impact they are easier to use. Normally three RE's are enough when attached to the back of a HAV, now throw one or two packed AV nades and detonate the RE's (be carefull in FW your AV nade will make you RE's detonate as well) with a bit of practice you can do this quickly enough so the Pilot has no chance on activating hardeners..
Borne Velvalor Endless Hatred 2100	Posted - 2014.01.07 11:29:00 - [69] - Quote As soon as I hear the sound of REs being deployed (yes, I can hear it), even in first person, I immediately harden and move forwards/backwards and kill whatever red is near me. Haven't died to REs in several days and enemies use them against me several times a match. Many suits I've worn, many burdens I've borne, for the oaths I've sworn. Panda.
Justicar Karnellia Ikomari-Onu Enforcement Caldari State 550	Posted - 2014.01.07 13:29:00 - [70] - Quote Thanks for all the positive feedback. As it's on CCP's list of things they're looking at for 1.8 it will be interested to see how they balance it without sending our tanks back to a pre-patch era.

Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 3144	Posted - 2014.01.07 16:59:00 - [71] - Quote Pretty well thought out post, and summarizes the current V/AV tank quite nicely. I'll go bake the cookies. CoD -----> <----- WoT Please AR and Tank scrubs, go to your respective games. Leave DUST alone!
Reign Omega BurgezzE.T.F Public Disorder. 86	Posted - 2014.01.08 01:06:00 - [72] - Quote Great debating here, I just wanted to pop in another of my 2 cents. Bear in mind we are only currently dealing with MLT and STD hulls for vehicles, while the rest of the vehicles are reworked. Some of us were here during the tyranny of the sagaris and Surya, and the comedy of the vayu and fashion bears mention. Imagine current AV vs stronger versions of any vehicles....
dreth longbow Bank of DUST 514 23	Posted - 2014.01.08 02:31:00 - [73] - Quote Korvin Lomont wrote: dreth longbow wrote: This is a good post and yes tanks as they stand now are a problem which could be solved many ways, even a quick hot fix to limit 2 tanks on a field at a time until they get it fixed (oh my did I say that?) Any way I have been frustrated on the number of tanks on the field and the durability of them and have been trying to find ways to counter them. I tried jihad jeeps with all their problems, they are ok, but did not work out all that good for me after the first few days since tankers know about them and infantry can blow you up with well placed shots. So I looked at a different option that I now enjoy using. Some of you tankers may recognize me as the guy who blew you up. Proxi mines are worthless, but RE are wonderful when combined with flux. I will run up to a tank put 5+ RE's on him, toss him some flux, oops their goes his shields, he starts to run-push button and good buy. This is alot of fun even though you die 3 out of 4 times trying to get to the tank, but with practice it works great and is cheap. I can see a lot of shotgunners with their skill already learned being good at this. Now this does not kill all tanks, but the majority of them will be killed (I have only had 3 get away in the last 2.5 weeks and I am sure they messed their pants and have killed maybe 20 sometimes 2 or 3 in a match). If just 2 guys were to employ this against tanks then we could cause the tanks to be less god like and go back to tactics. Flaws with this are simple if 2 or 3 tanks are running in a pack or infantry are supporting tanks you get noticed and die VERY quickly also you need a spawn point close by to the tank so you are not running all over the map looking for a tank. I usually get killed by a tank in my infantry fit and only then go looking for them with my RE+flux fit. I know this is not a fix to tanks, but it may help infantry not feel so neutered. I use a similar tactic but I use AV nades, I am not sure how flux work on RE's in FW ^^ and AV nades explode on impact they are easier to use. Normally three RE's are enough when attached to the back of a HAV, now throw one or two packed AV nades and detonate the RE's (be carefull in FW your AV nade will make you RE's detonate as well) with a bit of practice you can do this quickly enough so the Pilot has no chance on activating hardeners.. Flux will explode RE in FW, so don't get to close
Slightly-Mental Planetary Research and Investments 34	Posted - 2014.01.08 02:47:00 - [74] - Quote nicely wrote +1
Justicar Karnellia Ikomari-Onu Enforcement Caldari State 565	Posted - 2014.01.08 08:31:00 - [75] - Quote Reign Omega wrote: Great debating here, I just wanted to pop in another of my 2 cents. Bear in mind we are only currently dealing with MLT and STD hulls for vehicles, while the rest of the vehicles are reworked. Some of us were here during the tyranny of the sagaris and Surya, and the comedy of the vayu and fashion bears mention. Imagine current AV vs stronger versions of any vehicles.... Yes you're entirely correct - I didn't keep the vehicle roadmap in mind - of course balance should be a process, and not a collection of patches. Hopefully they will mimic the EVE online structure whereby balancing is done each and every patch to most of the content that needs it - so a dedicated team for this seems like a good idea.
Charlotte O'Dell Fatal Absolution Covert Intervention 1477	Posted - 2014.01.08 13:13:00 - [76] - Quote good job. Charlotte O'Dell is the highest level unicorn!
Silas Swakhammer GamersForChrist Orion Empire 347	Posted - 2014.02.07 02:57:00 - [77] - Quote Bumpity. Pineapples on pizza.
Killar-12 The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 2238	Posted - 2014.02.07 03:25:00 - [78] - Quote Passive skills Armor, Shields, PG and CPU returning in exchange for an decent sized AV buff to1.6 values? sounds good to me but who am I other than a dedicated AVer.... Listen I'll change the song every week
PAXTON HAILFIRE Isuuaya Tactical Caldari State 9	Posted - 2014.02.07 03:43:00 - [79] - Quote First I'd like to say, "very well written" to the OP. Excellent post. Second, I agree with all of it but the map. A tank should not fly accross mountains like a sparrow through an oak tree. They should get stuck and/or rollover in the hills with relative ease. Weight is bad in mountains. Weight is bad in hill climbs. The mountains should be a safe haven aainst tanks. Or any uneven terrain for that matter. Last thing you want is a high centered tank. Rolled tanks should not be recallable and definitely not flippable. Also, i have a swarm suit. Think its about 1:95 kdr. Lol. I'd be happy to at least be able to get away after a shot or be able to get off a shot before being blasted.
KING CHECKMATE Tal-Romon Legion Amarr Empire 4425	Posted - 2014.02.07 04:02:00 - [80] - Quote HAV Kills HAV Infantry Kills Infantry AV Kills AV This is working correctly. But in 1.6 we had= HAV > Infantry > AV > HAV Now we have= HAV > Infantry > AV < HAV. See the problem? Thank QQ tankers,thanks... @ OP. Great read, well one +3. AceOfJokers666 [ + ] AimBot / VALOR / MAG

Zatara Rought Fatal Absolution 2089	Posted - 2014.02.07 04:59:00 - [81] - Quote This post is so well written. Thank you for taking the time out of your life to list these issues so eloquently. CEO Fatal Absolution B3RT > PFBHz > TP > MHPD > IMP > F4TAL Skype me @ Zatara.Rought
Baal Roo Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 2916	Posted - 2014.02.07 05:04:00 - [82] - Quote As an AV user and a vehicle user, the problems seem ridiculously obvious: 1. Dual Hardeners 2. Speed Dual hardeners are just obviously broken. As far as speed, tanks are just too fast for infantry to be able to do enough damage to them. As soon as they get into trouble, they simple drive off before you can finish them off. If CCP would just make hardeners 1 per, and slow down the tanks to about HALF their current speed, I think everything would be damn near perfectly balanced. Tanks would have to pick their engagements and manage their modules effectively, and they would be punished for overcommitting (either by their own poor decisions, or clever baiting by opponents). If used effectively, they would be force multipliers that could completely change the flow of a match, but if used poorly they would be a sitting duck.
Shokhann Echo Chatelain Rapid Response Gallente Federation 168	Posted - 2014.02.07 05:34:00 - [83] - Quote True Adamance wrote: I used to tank....now I don't because of no skill scrubs spamming tanks......weird world huh? im so glad im retired from tanking lol..... honestly if things go back how they were from uprising to 1.6, tanks will become extinct and this will becomes call of duty 514 again, but its not my worry anymore because im no longer a tanker. Youtube Alt # 1 Back on main 3-31-2014
Lorhak Gannarsein Science For Death 1520	Posted - 2014.02.07 06:17:00 - [84] - Quote You lost 38 tanks O.O I've lost like three hundred XD Although I was doing dumb sh*t like diving fifteen seconds into the redline :P I think I lost two-thirds of my tanks to that. Also quite a few to Nyain San... Even triple hardeners can't tank five blasters. Trust me, I tried. Anyway. Great post, OP! I think the first step is actually removing hardener stacking, tbh. Put a greater focus on positioning and awareness; you're not going to get ganked by a blaster but you do need awareness of rail gun firing lines. Speed nerf would be nice. Swarm buff? Lock on range, assuming tanks slow down. Damage otherwise. I would like more vehicle options, though, to enable rock-paper-scissors play. Happily printing ISK with permahardeners and MLT blasters. Just let me get a couple mil more before nerf, CCP!
Juno Tristan Edimmu Warfighters Gallente Federation 2	Posted - 2014.02.07 12:19:00 - [85] - Quote Biggest problem I have with Tanks at the moment is they can run scanners, which is not much fun trying to forge gun them in my fat suit
Justicar Karnellia Ikomari-Onu Enforcement Caldari State 666	Posted - 2014.02.07 14:27:00 - [86] - Quote Not sure why this thread was resurrected but I think the point has been made - CCP and the CPM and most of the community agree there is an issue, it just remains to be seen if the proposed changes can bring the game mechanics back in line.
Magnus Amadeuss Tal-Romon Legion Amarr Empire 408	Posted - 2014.02.07 21:08:00 - [87] - Quote why has this thread fallen off of the front page? This is one of the few truly constructive post on these forums, and I salute the author. While there is no better place to be wealthy than the Gallente Federation, there is no hell worse for the poor either.
bogeyman m Learning Coalition College 65	Posted - 2014.02.08 00:59:00 - [88] - Quote Kudos to the OP for such a well written post.


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.