DUST Search - Lets talk tanks

All Channels

General Discussions

Lets talk tanks

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
PEW JACKSON Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance 177	Posted - 2014.01.10 23:16:00 - [1] - Quote Ello you Dusty Mercs I'm a bit of a rambler, so I'll jump right into things. Was in a squad of tankers yesterday roaming Ambush(used rails, but I know still tank stomped). A discussion about tank fits came up since we were all doing really well. A squad member gave his opinion and we all were expecting a pretty quick change in topic to pass the time in matches. To everyone's surprise, our fellow tanker went on about how he felt towards the different tank hulls and turrets. [All the other tankers ran blasters, including him] He stated that the Gunnlogi was simply OP, and that it needed to get nerfed. He also stated that railguns needed to get nerfed into the ground, because they're OP as well. I run Gunnlogis & rails, so I asked him "why?". He names a build 1 complex armor plate, 1 basic armor hardener, 2 dmg mods, shield hardener, and particle cannon. He also said how the fitting power on the Gunnlogi is OP for being able to fit such a broken thing. So the squad is quiet, allowing him to rant. He continues by saying how he has crunched the numbers to prove that the fit he named was the most OP. I asked him what exactly is OP about that fit besides the armor plate? He says the fact that this tank can 2 shot any unhardened tank, and 3 shot any tanks through a hardener. I told him that that's a pure anti tank fit. I saw no problem. Especially since that fit gives up all the easy blaster kills. He did raise a good point that I agree with. The Gunnlogi shouldn't be able to fit a complex plate with it being a shield tank. Especially with a proto rail. I tell him that it takes a considerable amount of SP to pull that fit off though. He just repeated saying the Gunnlogi should get a PG & CPU nerf. Also stating that the Rail gun should get nerfed into the ground. I ask him why do you hate my tank so much? He fires back and says that his blaster shouldn't lose up close against a rail. I told him that he was using a turret geared more towards killing infantry, to kill a tank, while the other tanker was using a turret geared more towards killing vehicles. He even continued saying that the Gunnlogi's hardener + shield regen mechanic was horribly OP and broken. I ask why do you hate shield tanks so much? He said that Gunnlogi's shields shouldn't recharge under blaster or any kind of AV fire. I said then your armor reps should stop every time you get hit then. I continued to say that he was still trying to kill a tank with an anti infantry turret. He then goes on to say that the Madrugar is under powered compared to the Gunnlogi. His stance on that being the fitting power between the two. He said that the Maddy should get at least a 100 cpu buff while also having armor modules use less cpu. (another point I agree with) Then we go back to his hatred and rage felt towards the shield tank. He says again that even if the Madrugar got a cpu buff, the Gunnlogi still needs a nerf. I told him let's stop with all the nerf this, nerf that bullsh*t. You don't want to see shield tanks with armor? Give the Maddy more PG with it's CPU buff and raise the PG cost of plates. He stood by his nerf bat mentality. At that point I saw that he just wanted Madrugars to reign supreme, because he still pushed for a nerf instead of balance. We discussed turrets and I threw this out there. Blasters: Primarily anti infantry with low AV capabilities. Missiles: Equally effective against Infantry and Vehicles. Rails: Primarily anti vehicle with low anti infantry capabilities. To be quite honest, I think tanks are nearly perfect balance wise against each other excluding the triple dmg modded red line rail. Blaster Maddy killing infantry? Call in a Gunnlogi with a rail. Rail Gunnlogi killing tanks? Call in a Maddy rail. Maddy rail pwning Gunllogis? Call in a Missile Maddy/Gunnlogi. I could think of tons of scenarios. Each turret fits into a scenario, and that's good. (feels too simple at times though) I don't want to see things get run into the ground again. CCP went overboard on Tank vs AV balance, but Tank vs Tank is nearly perfect. Lets discuss. Dead on the ground.... Think I made a wrong turn :/
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 1421	Posted - 2014.01.10 23:28:00 - [2] - Quote Well you're right, the blaster is a really awful anti-HAV weapon unless you're fighting another blaster....then it's just fun as hell. it is a little frustrating when you get up point blank against a rail tank and it still wins, but its an acceptable tradeoff considering how easy it is to get kills with a blaster. Now the point about missiles....normally I would agree that missiles would be that nice middle ground between AV and AP, but with 1.7 they've turned into pure alpha strike DPS turrets, as the splash radius is simply too small to consistently get infantry kills without a direct hit. The role that Missiles now take is much akin to what I envision for Artillery turrets if we ever got those. What I could see for the future is perhaps a shift to make Blasters more of an AV weapon by lowering the fire rate significantly and bumping the damage per shot up, making it harder to use on infantry. Then we could have Large Autocannon turrets (4 HMGs strapped together with duct tape and tie-wraps) and use that as more of the anti-infantry turret. 1.8 Analysis - Sentinel Damage Efficiency Calcs
PEW JACKSON Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance 177	Posted - 2014.01.10 23:32:00 - [3] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Well you're right, the blaster is a really awful anti-HAV weapon unless you're fighting another blaster....then it's just fun as hell. it is a little frustrating when you get up point blank against a rail tank and it still wins, but its an acceptable tradeoff considering how easy it is to get kills with a blaster. Now the point about missiles....normally I would agree that missiles would be that nice middle ground between AV and AP, but with 1.7 they've turned into pure alpha strike DPS turrets, as the splash radius is simply too small to consistently get infantry kills without a direct hit. The role that Missiles now take is much akin to what I envision for Artillery turrets if we ever got those. What I could see for the future is perhaps a shift to make Blasters more of an AV weapon by lowering the fire rate significantly and bumping the damage per shot up, making it harder to use on infantry. Then we could have Large Autocannon turrets (4 HMGs strapped together with duct tape and tie-wraps) and use that as more of the anti-infantry turret. You has my vote for CPM Run in the election!!! This one needs our VOTES!!!!!!! Couldn't have said it better myself. Just lost trying to figure out the role Amarr turrets will play. Maybe precision anti infantry/mid range AV? Like futher than missiles, but shorter than rails. Dead on the ground.... Think I made a wrong turn :/
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 1421	Posted - 2014.01.10 23:37:00 - [4] - Quote PEW JACKSON wrote: You has my vote for CPM Run in the election!!! This one needs our VOTES!!!!!!! Couldn't have said it better myself. Just lost trying to figure out the role Amarr turrets will play. Maybe precision anti infantry/mid range AV? Like futher than missiles, but shorter than rails. Haha I intend to, I just don't flaunt it out in the open like most people. Amarr basically have 2 options, Burst Laser (Scrambler) and Beam Laser. I personally vote for a large turret that operates much like the current Laser rifle, though some adjustments would need to be made with the range and whatnot. I would like to see for the small Amarr lasers to be more like Scrambler rifles with the ability to do a charge shot, or semi-auto fire. 1.8 Analysis - Sentinel Damage Efficiency Calcs
PEW JACKSON Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance 177	Posted - 2014.01.10 23:44:00 - [5] - Quote ^ Definitely going places if you can share some of that thinking with some of the dense rulers(Devs) of New Eden. [Not all Devs are bad] Dead on the ground.... Think I made a wrong turn :/
Aizen Intiki Hell's Gate Inc League of Infamy 654	Posted - 2014.01.10 23:49:00 - [6] - Quote Well, he has a point with the Gunnlogi being OP. Let me explain without rage: First off, the rails. See, if you're decent enough, rails can be used for AI, and quite well. I've seen it happen, and done it (I can do it, just like blasters more due do being Gallente). So the "Rails are AV only" is frankly false. Also, being able to 2/3 shot things is what we were trying to go away from. We had enough of that from IAFG's. And that's what Partice Cannons have become, only worse. Speaking of IAFG's, rails are far superior to FG's, and that needs fixing. Second, Missiles. Other than the bug, missiles are completely OP. That's obvious. They are so easy to use, I don't even have to try with fighting in a Missile HAV. It's just point and fire, reload, point, fire. repeat on another 2 HAV's. They frankly need a nerf. Lastly, both of the Caldari HAV's have too much CPU/PG compared to the Maddy's and the Soma. The Sica needs nerfing (so does the Soma, but on a lesser form) for the CPU/ PG, but the Gunnlogi can stay where it's at. The Maddy, however, needs a buff in CPU/PG. Then, it will be on equal footing.until then, Gunnlogi will be OP. P.S. Damage mods and the redline are also factors to the rails being OP. "Hello, world!" lol, sounds like something a whore lover would say Alt of the great Godin I like chocolate ^___^
Aizen Intiki Hell's Gate Inc League of Infamy 654	Posted - 2014.01.10 23:50:00 - [7] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: PEW JACKSON wrote: You has my vote for CPM Run in the election!!! This one needs our VOTES!!!!!!! Couldn't have said it better myself. Just lost trying to figure out the role Amarr turrets will play. Maybe precision anti infantry/mid range AV? Like futher than missiles, but shorter than rails. Haha I intend to, I just don't flaunt it out in the open like most people. Amarr basically have 2 options, Pulse Laser (Scrambler) and Beam Laser. I personally vote for a large turret that operates much like the current Laser rifle, though some adjustments would need to be made with the range and whatnot. I would like to see for the small Amarr lasers to be more like Scrambler rifles with the ability to do a charge shot, or semi-auto fire. That's probably how they will work. I always thought the Beam laser would be really good though. Can't wait for the Arty's though. "Hello, world!" lol, sounds like something a whore lover would say Alt of the great Godin I like chocolate ^___^
Monkey MAC Lost Millennium 1545	Posted - 2014.01.10 23:54:00 - [8] - Quote I'm getting tired of bringing the AV view of AV discussions only to hear. AV is balanced it only takes 3 Proto Forge Guns to take out a Mlt Tanker who isn't engaged in combat with you. Tanks 514 I told you, I bloody well told you. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
PEW JACKSON Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance 177	Posted - 2014.01.10 23:58:00 - [9] - Quote Aizen Intiki wrote: Well, he has a point with the Gunnlogi being OP. Let me explain without rage: First off, the rails. See, if you're decent enough, rails can be used for AI, and quite well. I've seen it happen, and done it (I can do it, just like blasters more due do being Gallente). So the "Rails are AV only" is frankly false. Also, being able to 2/3 shot things is what we were trying to go away from. We had enough of that from IAFG's. And that's what Partice Cannons have become, only worse. Speaking of IAFG's, rails are far superior to FG's, and that needs fixing. Second, Missiles. Other than the bug, missiles are completely OP. That's obvious. They are so easy to use, I don't even have to try with fighting in a Missile HAV. It's just point and fire, reload, point, fire. repeat on another 2 HAV's. They frankly need a nerf. Lastly, both of the Caldari HAV's have too much CPU/PG compared to the Maddy's and the Soma. The Sica needs nerfing (so does the Soma, but on a lesser form) for the CPU/ PG, but the Gunnlogi can stay where it's at. The Maddy, however, needs a buff in CPU/PG. Then, it will be on equal footing.until then, Gunnlogi will be OP. P.S. Damage mods and the redline are also factors to the rails being OP. Everyone who says rails are OP usually have some vehicle that gets popped by them. The same point of rails being used for AI can be made with the FG. I think the only OP point that Gunnlogi has over the Maddy is the CPU. Give maddy 580 CPU and I think things will look better. Maybe even giving plates a slight raise in PG cost. Dead on the ground.... Think I made a wrong turn :/
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 1425	Posted - 2014.01.11 00:00:00 - [10] - Quote Gunnlogi's do have significantly better fitting potential, and that's not even really taking into account that they can easily fit PG and CPU upgrades. All too often in my Gunnlogi fits (I run both types) I'm shrugging my shoulders about what to put in the lows because my highs are all complex and I have the turret I want, so I usually slap armor modules in there because why not? The thing I don't want to see, and it's already happening, is the game turning into nothing but railguns fighting each other. I LOVE Blaster brawling, it is my absolute favorite thing to do in Dust, but unfortunately you really can't do it because a rail will just chase you down and kill you point blank...believe me I do it to Blasters all the time when they get up close to me. I personally would trade a decrease in AP effectiveness in exchange for making Blasters unbeatable at close range in terms of AV. As for Missiles....I don't know. I like that they're a massive burst of DPS with awful reload time, they're much like the Rapid Fire missiles in EVE. Believe it or not, if you break down the DPS and consider reload time, all of the large Turrets basically have the same sustained DPS over time. Only caveat to that is it doesn't take heat buildup into account, I haven't gotten around to doing the math for that yet =P 1.8 Analysis - Sentinel Damage Efficiency Calcs

PEW JACKSON Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance 177	Posted - 2014.01.11 00:01:00 - [11] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: I'm getting tired of bringing the AV view of AV discussions only to hear. AV is balanced it only takes 3 Proto Forge Guns to take out a Mlt Tanker who isn't engaged in combat with you. The broken part of AV is the no Bucks for all the bang.... 35 WP for every 1000 ehp damage and people won't care if tanks die. They'll be happy just farming points with an occasional kill. Dead on the ground.... Think I made a wrong turn :/
Slim Winning BIG BAD W0LVES 2	Posted - 2014.01.11 00:03:00 - [12] - Quote I have 2mil SP. Tanks are all I have to work with right now. I use a blaster most of the time. Its OP because of its effectivness against person and vehicle players. If I have a hardener, I can out do 1v1 just about any tank. I use rails sometimes and sometimes there is no tanks to attack with it. But I can kill people with it easily enough, more than I could with my frontline dropsuit. I think missile tanks are the mostly against other tanks. If I lose my hardener, a missle tank will blow me up in a second.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 1425	Posted - 2014.01.11 00:06:00 - [13] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: I'm getting tired of bringing the AV view of AV discussions only to hear. AV is balanced it only takes 3 Proto Forge Guns to take out a Mlt Tanker who isn't engaged in combat with you. Simply not true. Several guys in my corp that are dedicated Forge Gunners and rip tanks apart left and right. Assault Forge guns do massive DPS and are very difficult to tank against. Breach Forge guns can outright kill some tanks with their hardeners off. Had a match about a week ago where my hardener dropped and half a second later I detonated from near full health. Proto Breach Forge. That guy was watching and waiting for my hardener to go down and got me, as he should have. I run AV all the time too, so I know how to goes. The thing is many AV guys complain that they can't kill tanks, but the problem is they're trying to engage HAVs on level ground....literally. Tanks can't climb ladders, they cant get on top of buildings, and their means of taking cover are far more limited. Infantry have a plethora of advantages over HAVs but so rarely do I see any of them making use of them. Get up high, get a assault forge gun, and watch the vehicle kills come rolling in. 1.8 Analysis - Sentinel Damage Efficiency Calcs
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 1426	Posted - 2014.01.11 00:10:00 - [14] - Quote Slim Winning wrote: I have 2mil SP. Tanks are all I have to work with right now. I use a blaster most of the time. Its OP because of its effectivness against person and vehicle players. If I have a hardener, I can out do 1v1 just about any tank. I use rails sometimes and sometimes there is no tanks to attack with it. But I can kill people with it easily enough, more than I could with my frontline dropsuit. I think missile tanks are the mostly against other tanks. If I lose my hardener, a missle tank will blow me up in a second. You also have to remember that about 90% of the tankers you see now, just started tanking in 1.7 An experienced tanker who knows what he's doing will easily be able to rip you apart regardless. There is quite a deal more to tanking than the tank, and I think a lot of people don't quite realize that. I'm by no means the best, but I've been driving HAVs for nearly 2 years now, so I know a thing or two PEW JACKSON wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: I'm getting tired of bringing the AV view of AV discussions only to hear. AV is balanced it only takes 3 Proto Forge Guns to take out a Mlt Tanker who isn't engaged in combat with you. The broken part of AV is the no Bucks for all the bang.... 35 WP for every 1000 ehp damage and people won't care if tanks die. They'll be happy just farming points with an occasional kill. I fully and completely support this. It used to be this way back in closed beta but was taken out for reasons. Doing damage to a tank is very important, because even if you don't kill it, you can force it to move and leave the area, and you should be rewarded for that. Give WP for doing vehicle damage and people will start bringing out AV en mass. 1.8 Analysis - Sentinel Damage Efficiency Calcs
Viktor Hadah Jr Critical-Impact 1845	Posted - 2014.01.11 00:12:00 - [15] - Quote when did such walls of text become acceptable here... Selling Templar BPO 300Mil Earn 50Mil+ ISK in Dust
Monkey MAC Lost Millennium 1546	Posted - 2014.01.11 00:13:00 - [16] - Quote PEW JACKSON wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: I'm getting tired of bringing the AV view of AV discussions only to hear. AV is balanced it only takes 3 Proto Forge Guns to take out a Mlt Tanker who isn't engaged in combat with you. The broken part of AV is the no Bucks for all the bang.... 35 WP for every 1000 ehp damage and people won't care if tanks die. They'll be happy just farming points with an occasional kill. That and AV making them **** of back to the redline BEFORE they butcher your team twice. The lack of reward for AV does garner, an all or nothing playstyle. If you didn't kill the tanker you don't get paid. But AV still lacks the punch Tanks aren't afraid of AV they won't high tail out ofbthe hot zone when you put a mag's worth of forge gun. They see swarms fly towards them and purposefully turn to hit them head on as if its an insult. Personally I wouldn't care if we never killed a tank again so long as when it counts a good AVer with the same meta level of gear can successfully supress a tank when it matters. Tanks 514 I told you, I bloody well told you. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
Monkey MAC Lost Millennium 1546	Posted - 2014.01.11 00:16:00 - [17] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: I'm getting tired of bringing the AV view of AV discussions only to hear. AV is balanced it only takes 3 Proto Forge Guns to take out a Mlt Tanker who isn't engaged in combat with you. Simply not true. Several guys in my corp that are dedicated Forge Gunners and rip tanks apart left and right. Assault Forge guns do massive DPS and are very difficult to tank against. Breach Forge guns can outright kill some tanks with their hardeners off. Had a match about a week ago where my hardener dropped and half a second later I detonated from near full health. Proto Breach Forge. That guy was watching and waiting for my hardener to go down and got me, as he should have. I run AV all the time too, so I know how to goes. The thing is many AV guys complain that they can't kill tanks, but the problem is they're trying to engage HAVs on level ground....literally. Tanks can't climb ladders, they cant get on top of buildings, and their means of taking cover are far more limited. Infantry have a plethora of advantages over HAVs but so rarely do I see any of them making use of them. Get up high, get a assault forge gun, and watch the vehicle kills come rolling in. So what about when the point your defending is on level ground? Its all well and good saying wait till his hardners arenoff, but by that time the tank has already done its damage, you only revenge killing it. Its when Tanks engage in Combat with AV we see the disparities. Tanks 514 I told you, I bloody well told you. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
Izlare Lenix FREE AGENTS LP 91	Posted - 2014.01.11 00:20:00 - [18] - Quote Blasters = really good at killing infantry, ok at killing tanks. Rails = really good at killing tanks, ok at killing infantry Seems balanced to me. Blaster tankers are crying about rails because they can't crush then like they can ANY infantry they catch in the open. They also can't run from them like they can AV nades, swarms and forge gunners. And of course rails slow them down from slaughtering all the infantry they find, ruining their perfect k/d. Blaster tankers want to be able to kill every thing they come across, which would be way more OP than rail tanks. If you want to play ez mode and use a blaster tank to mow down squads of infantry don't cry when a real AV rail tank blows your pansy ass up.
Marad''er Ancient Exiles. Renegade Alliance 138	Posted - 2014.01.11 00:22:00 - [19] - Quote He raised good points though. Rails are horribly over powered... You don't think the same? Why do you think Mlt rail with dmg mod is so good? It's because it's OP to start with. Tank v Tank is lame and boring as hell. Whoever has the rail fit wins. Tank v Tank isn't skill... It's become like infantry now.. Whoever shoots first wins.. The variety in fittings are gone. Everyone has the SAME EXACT FITTING! Lol GôÉGô¥GôÿGô£Gôö > GôÉGô¢Gô¢ Gÿà¿When will dust get better?Gÿà Forum Warrior LV. 4 \| Warframe is awesome! \| PSN: I-NINJA-ALL-DAY
Racro 01 Arifistan 501st Knights of Leanbox INTERGALACTIC WARPIGS 104	Posted - 2014.01.11 01:10:00 - [20] - Quote i dont get why the blaster turret gets so much hate. i consistenlty use blaster turrets. and killign infantry is quick but then i look at how much of a clip i just used to kill you. ion cannon deals 135.6 damage bolt. and a proto suit say gallanete has 138 sheild and 500 armour. thats 638 ehp. now i only have to hit you 7 times to kill you. so out of 7 shots 3-4 may hit so i have to use at least 10-13 shots to kill a moveing taregt that is a proto suit. honestly. blasters are actually very good at brining down any tank type. the only trouble there is vs tanks is double hardned gunnlogis. this is the only problem i ahve with tanks apart form railgun rate of fire. (nerf rail rate of fire and they are fine) but with the double hardnd gunnlogi. me and 2 other alliance mates tried this. one dorpped double ahrdned rail gunnlogi. me and another drop 2 tanks with ion cannons. we couldnt even break the double hardned railgun. no tank should be able to require 2 to bring down while hardned. problem with tanks = double hardened gunnlogis. shield harnders hsould give at least 55-50% resistenmce rather thant he ridiculos 60.

RED FARM GOOD OL' B0YS 53	Posted - 2014.01.11 01:49:00 - [21] - Quote Tanks are balanced. One rail tank squading with one blaster tank is the most lethal moving combo out there. Pew's scenario match-ups are accurate. Lower cost Sicas can even take out GLs etc. if you can the drop on them. Ground pounders are doing a good job taking out tanks. Tanks busy killing infantry get thier ass killed while zoned out killing. I personall only kill infantry infantry if the sniper I am 8 meters from cannot hear me or I am pasong them vs. dancing around a box. Sorry, I'd feel like a ***** killing a scout hiding behind a box. If you stop your tank now for infantry plan... on getting railed in the cooter. Public Chat: GOOD OL' B0YS Please note the word B0YS has a zero in it.
PEW JACKSON Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance 177	Posted - 2014.01.11 02:09:00 - [22] - Quote Marad''er wrote: He raised good points though. Rails are horribly over powered... You don't think the same? Why do you think Mlt rail with dmg mod is so good? It's because it's OP to start with. Tank v Tank is lame and boring as hell. Whoever has the rail fit wins. Tank v Tank isn't skill... It's become like infantry now.. Whoever shoots first wins.. The variety in fittings are gone. Everyone has the SAME EXACT FITTING! Lol Take away rails for 1 day, and you'll see the forums erupt with Blasters r OP!!!! threads. I've alpha'd rail tanks with missiles and been alpha'd while using rails. Yes whoever shoots first wins 90% of the time. Maybe fittings are simple rite now so it'd be easier to add the other two racial hulls? Dead on the ground.... Think I made a wrong turn :/


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