DUST Search - Why Shouldn't Tanks Be Soloed?

All Channels

General Discussions

Why Shouldn't Tanks Be Soloed?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 3304	Posted - 2014.01.11 04:46:00 - [1] - Quote Title is Self-Explanatory CoD -----> <----- WoT Please AR and Tank scrubs, go to your respective games. Leave DUST alone!
Aizen Intiki Hell's Gate Inc League of Infamy 660	Posted - 2014.01.11 04:48:00 - [2] - Quote Reported for being a douche trying to troll people. "Hello, world!" lol, sounds like something a whore lover would say Alt of the great Godin I like chocolate ^___^
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 3306	Posted - 2014.01.11 04:49:00 - [3] - Quote Aizen Intiki wrote: Reported for being a douche trying to troll people. I'm not even trolling. It's been over 6 months and I have yet to actually see a decent answer to the question at hand. CoD -----> <----- WoT Please AR and Tank scrubs, go to your respective games. Leave DUST alone!
Blaze Ashra Ametat Security Amarr Empire 85	Posted - 2014.01.11 04:51:00 - [4] - Quote They want to be soloed, just by other tankers instead of AV. But apparently militia tanks aren't good enough lol.
LEHON Xeon Pradox XVI Proficiency V. 39	Posted - 2014.01.11 04:51:00 - [5] - Quote I have to agree. Tankers can "solo" other tankers and definitely infantry with a blaster, why shouldn't it be universal? Necrophillia: That Uncontrollable Urge To Crack Open A Cold One.
Charlotte O'Dell Fatal Absolution Covert Intervention 1561	Posted - 2014.01.11 04:53:00 - [6] - Quote well, an 80k isk sica should be soloed, yes, but my half million isk tank should be right about where it is bc i invested half my Sp in it. So, to answer your question, a very expensive, very well planned tank piloted by a high SP and highly skilled and seasoned pilot should be nigh invincible. A mlt tank piloted by a noob should get soloed every single time someone tries. The quickest fix would be to nerf mlt tank fitting power AND buff AV so that AV can actually punch through tanks when their hardeners are off. It usually takes 3 shots from a swarm or forge, but a bad tanker is gone by the time the second shot lands, and a good tanker will only let one hit. Charlotte O'Dell is the highest level unicorn!
The Robot Devil Molon Labe. Public Disorder. 1491	Posted - 2014.01.11 04:53:00 - [7] - Quote Bad fits with bad pilots against one well equipped skilled merc should die in every situation. There is no problem Well fit HAVs with a good pilot and light support should only rarely get popped if ever against one merc. *when I say support I am talking about gunner inside the HAV. GÇ£No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride." Hunter S. Thompson
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 3306	Posted - 2014.01.11 04:53:00 - [8] - Quote Blaze Ashra wrote: They want to be soloed, just by other tankers instead of AV. But apparently militia tanks aren't good enough lol. I'll fix up the title then lol. CoD -----> <----- WoT Please AR and Tank scrubs, go to your respective games. Leave DUST alone!
Charlotte O'Dell Fatal Absolution Covert Intervention 1561	Posted - 2014.01.11 04:54:00 - [9] - Quote Atiim wrote: Title is Self-Explanatory Stop lumping all tankers into the same category. It makes you look stupid. Charlotte O'Dell is the highest level unicorn!
Logi Bro Greatness Achieved Through Training EoN. 2599	Posted - 2014.01.11 04:54:00 - [10] - Quote sigh This is obvious bait, yet I know other people will not recognize it as so, and this thread will blow up into a full-blown troll thread. For what it's worth, tanks should be solo'd because only one person is needed to drive it. If one person by himself can take two or three infantry out of the fight, then that is on OP role. Just throw out four tanks and you've got half the enemy team running AV and unable to properly defend themselves against full-AI enemies, while the tanker team is only short a few people. Saying that using a tank is the best counter is only admitting how ridiculous your role is, this game is meant to have choices, and no one choice is meant to be obviously superior to any other. Each should have its own benefits and downfalls. TL;DR: Because balance. No, I am not CCP Logibro. Not actually a Logi Bro anymore, more like a Big Bro.

Mobius Wyvern Ahrendee Mercenaries EoN. 4424	Posted - 2014.01.11 04:55:00 - [11] - Quote Charlotte O'Dell wrote: well, an 80k isk sica should be soloed, yes, but my half million isk tank should be right about where it is bc i invested half my Sp in it. So, to answer your question, a very expensive, very well planned tank piloted by a high SP and highly skilled and seasoned pilot should be nigh invincible. A mlt tank piloted by a noob should get soloed every single time someone tries. The quickest fix would be to nerf mlt tank fitting power AND buff AV so that AV can actually punch through tanks when their hardeners are off. It usually takes 3 shots from a swarm or forge, but a bad tanker is gone by the time the second shot lands, and a good tanker will only let one hit. See, that's the issue. Militia tanks can give a good fight to someone who actually invested time and skill into their asset and worked to get to where they are now. THAT is the problem with 1.7. Make Militia tanks inferior to STD ones like they used to be. The cost is fine, but they shouldn't be able to **** up someone who actually worked for their asset and put a lot of ISK into it. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 3306	Posted - 2014.01.11 04:57:00 - [12] - Quote Charlotte O'Dell wrote: Atiim wrote: Title is Self-Explanatory Stop lumping all tankers into the same category. It makes you look stupid. How am I lumping all tankers into a general category? When I said "Self Explanatory", I meant that the title of the thread is the actual question at hand, which does make it "Self Explanatory." Please, show me where I am "lumping all tankers into the same category". CoD -----> <----- WoT Please AR and Tank scrubs, go to your respective games. Leave DUST alone!
DUST Fiend OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 9882	Posted - 2014.01.11 04:57:00 - [13] - Quote You have to be careful with AV buffs or dropships will go right back to where they were. We're actually really close to a state of balance right now, of course there are issues left that need to be addressed, but overall, it's coming along nicely for a change. Assault Dropship Montage Incubus Pilot, AV Specialist, Fat Scout DUST addict
I-Shayz-I I-----I 1886	Posted - 2014.01.11 05:00:00 - [14] - Quote The balance should be on the players. 3 people in a tank should match 3 AV players. 3 AV players should be better than 1 person in a tank 3 people in a tank should be better than 1 AV player. I think that tanks need to rely more on infantry support than just their tank themselves, whether the infantry is in the tank or not. That's how it used to be...if you had two people in the tank who could jump out and kill AV players easily, then yeah, you should be able to take on more than one AV player. But a solo tank should not be able to take on 5 AV players by himself alone in a militia tank. Links: List of Most Important Threads I make logistics videos!
Slim Winning BIG BAD W0LVES 2	Posted - 2014.01.11 05:06:00 - [15] - Quote Because most tankers suck at tactics and skill. Hence is why they're in the tank to begin with. You don't here anyone saying "a starter dropsuit shouldn't be able to solo my prototype dropsuit." Being outplayed is being outplayed. Only delusional tankers can't accept this. You can't simply spend your way to an easy button.
zDemoncake Horizons' Edge 24	Posted - 2014.01.11 05:09:00 - [16] - Quote I remember back before the AV nerf I would RARELY destroy a good player with a madrugar / gunloggi with my Lai Dais'. I would have to throw a nanohive in the heat of battle dodging infantry bullets, the tank that either saw me coming or noticed me. Several takers that I rarely soloed because 3-6 lai dais couldn't destroy them: Alain le Victorious(sp?) Mrbh1997 AceAttorney PhoenixWright 0 P Pete Cats I remember it took a full squad to take down Ace's Enforcers that he called down on us while having logi lav support. Squad set up Me: Lai Dais, standard swarm Revrac: 9kk30 Forge (could have been Dau) Arc-08: CBR7 swarms dominck more : CBR7s smarterthangargonzola - Ishukone Assault Forge Gun Prince Adidas - I don't recall weapon, but I've never seen him with AV gear out. It was a hectic grudge match CEO of Horizons' Edge mercenary division Don't let me into my zone.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 1488	Posted - 2014.01.11 05:09:00 - [17] - Quote I-Shayz-I wrote: The balance should be on the players. 3 people in a tank should match 3 AV players. 3 AV players should be better than 1 person in a tank 3 people in a tank should be better than 1 AV player. I think that tanks need to rely more on infantry support than just their tank themselves, whether the infantry is in the tank or not. That's how it used to be...if you had two people in the tank who could jump out and kill AV players easily, then yeah, you should be able to take on more than one AV player. But a solo tank should not be able to take on 5 AV players by himself alone in a militia tank. Came intending to troll. Found unexpected goodpost that makes the point I intended to. Leaving now as if logic fails trolling won't be any better.
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 3306	Posted - 2014.01.11 05:13:00 - [18] - Quote Charlotte O'Dell wrote: well, an 80k isk sica should be soloed, yes, but my half million isk tank should be right about where it is bc i invested half my Sp in it. So, to answer your question, a very expensive, very well planned tank piloted by a high SP and highly skilled and seasoned pilot should be nigh invincible. A mlt tank piloted by a noob should get soloed every single time someone tries. The quickest fix would be to nerf mlt tank fitting power AND buff AV so that AV can actually punch through tanks when their hardeners are off. It usually takes 3 shots from a swarm or forge, but a bad tanker is gone by the time the second shot lands, and a good tanker will only let one hit. Then what about the very expensive AV suits with high SP investments and highly skilled and seasoned AVers? Should they be able to demolish tanks left and right? Lets not use the ISK argument here. A half decent AV suit can range from 150-215k with the guarantee to die at least 2-4 times. 600-860k > 500k. I firmly believe that if a seasoned pilot should be "un-stoppable" then a seasoned AVer should also be able to become "un-stoppable" Yes? No? Maybe So? Though you would need to be real careful when buffing AV. It could do some serious harm to Dropships if over-done even slightly. And we all know how CCP is always reasonable with their nerfs CoD -----> <----- WoT Please AR and Tank scrubs, go to your respective games. Leave DUST alone!
Slim Winning BIG BAD W0LVES 2	Posted - 2014.01.11 05:13:00 - [19] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: You have to be careful with AV buffs or dropships will go right back to where they were. We're actually really close to a state of balance right now, of course there are issues left that need to be addressed, but overall, it's coming along nicely for a change. ADSes are more OP than tanks right now. They only you have to worry about is a FG player with a good shot. Those XT-1s are brutal to people and vehicles. Its basically a rail tank or 2 FG players that can stop you, but a ADS still has more advantages
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 3306	Posted - 2014.01.11 05:13:00 - [20] - Quote Please attempt to keep this constructive, as I don't want another troll thread being made out of this. -HAND. CoD -----> <----- WoT Please AR and Tank scrubs, go to your respective games. Leave DUST alone!

Luk Manag of Terror TRE GAFFEL 288	Posted - 2014.01.11 05:14:00 - [21] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: You have to be careful with AV buffs or dropships will go right back to where they were. We're actually really close to a state of balance right now, of course there are issues left that need to be addressed, but overall, it's coming along nicely for a change. LOL - the only thing you have to worry about are tanks. Virtually invincible vs infantry seems about right to you? There will be bullets. ACR+SMG
DUST Fiend OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 9886	Posted - 2014.01.11 05:16:00 - [22] - Quote Slim Winning wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: You have to be careful with AV buffs or dropships will go right back to where they were. We're actually really close to a state of balance right now, of course there are issues left that need to be addressed, but overall, it's coming along nicely for a change. ADSes are more OP than tanks right now. They only you have to worry about is a FG player with a good shot. Those XT-1s are brutal to people and vehicles. Its basically a rail tank or 2 FG players that can stop you, but a ADS still has more advantages Really, cuz I tend to see way more tanks than ADS..... Railguns are beyond nasty to them, RDVs, null cannons, MCC missiles, invisible artifacts in the sky, ship being rocked all over by missile turrets and swarms, suicide MLT dropships crashing into you, breach forge guns. Sure, you'll probably never solo a good ADS with swarms, and missiles are a bit too wtfawesome still, but comparing ADS to railtanks is..... Luk Manag wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: You have to be careful with AV buffs or dropships will go right back to where they were. We're actually really close to a state of balance right now, of course there are issues left that need to be addressed, but overall, it's coming along nicely for a change. LOL - the only thing you have to worry about are tanks. Virtually invincible vs infantry seems about right to you? What, you want to kill them with ARs now? Forge guns are beautiful vs dropships if you can aim, and if you roll with a squad a swarm or two will guarantee that you lock dropships out of the area that you're in. Assault Dropship Montage Incubus Pilot, AV Specialist, Fat Scout DUST addict
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 3308	Posted - 2014.01.11 05:34:00 - [23] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: See, that's the issue. Militia tanks can give a good fight to someone who actually invested time and skill into their asset and worked to get to where they are now. THAT is the problem with 1.7. Make Militia tanks inferior to STD ones like they used to be. The cost is fine, but they shouldn't be able to **** up someone who actually worked for their asset and put a lot of ISK into it. While I do believe that SP investment needs to matter, I don't think this is a good way of handling things. A tanker should be threatened by a MLT tanker in the same sense that a MLT scrub in a free suit can wreck your PRO suit if your not careful. Skill>SP needs to be a thing. CoD -----> <----- WoT Please AR and Tank scrubs, go to your respective games. Leave DUST alone!
Leonid Tybalt Dark Knightz Corp. 121	Posted - 2014.01.11 05:39:00 - [24] - Quote Atiim wrote: Aizen Intiki wrote: Reported for being a douche trying to troll people. I'm not even trolling. It's been over 6 months and I have yet to actually see a decent answer to the question at hand. Because it's stupid. A good tank costs a LOT more than a couple of av grenadea carried by one infantryman. They even tend to cost more than a proto heavy suit with a proto forge gun. Also, real world infantry rarely "solo kill" real world tanks. Then why should sci-fi infantry "solo kill" sci-fi tanks?
Kharga Lum Xeno Labs Security 217	Posted - 2014.01.11 05:41:00 - [25] - Quote Logi Bro wrote: sigh This is obvious bait, yet I know other people will not recognize it as so, and this thread will blow up into a full-blown troll thread. For what it's worth, tanks should be solo'd because only one person is needed to drive it. If one person by himself can take two or three infantry out of the fight, then that is on OP role. Just throw out four tanks and you've got half the enemy team running AV and unable to properly defend themselves against full-AI enemies, while the tanker team is only short a few people. Saying that using a tank is the best counter is only admitting how ridiculous your role is, this game is meant to have choices, and no one choice is meant to be obviously superior to any other. Each should have its own benefits and downfalls. TL;DR: Because balance. Tanks don't capture objectives. Tanks don't climb stairs. Tanks don't fit inside buildings. Enemy team can have 5 highly skilled tankers with very high KDR and still loose. It's a tank, most infantry should be avoiding it.
jerrmy12 kahoalii The Phoenix Federation 324	Posted - 2014.01.11 05:41:00 - [26] - Quote Leonid Tybalt wrote: Atiim wrote: Aizen Intiki wrote: Reported for being a douche trying to troll people. I'm not even trolling. It's been over 6 months and I have yet to actually see a decent answer to the question at hand. Because it's stupid. A good tank costs a LOT more than a couple of av grenadea carried by one infantryman. They even tend to cost more than a proto heavy suit with a proto forge gun. Also, real world infantry rarely "solo kill" real world tanks. Then why should sci-fi infantry "solo kill" sci-fi tanks? because its a game, but my assault forge gun needs a buff I use a tablet so beware of typos
DUST Fiend OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 9889	Posted - 2014.01.11 05:42:00 - [27] - Quote Leonid Tybalt wrote: Atiim wrote: Aizen Intiki wrote: Reported for being a douche trying to troll people. I'm not even trolling. It's been over 6 months and I have yet to actually see a decent answer to the question at hand. Because it's stupid. A good tank costs a LOT more than a couple of av grenadea carried by one infantryman. They even tend to cost more than a proto heavy suit with a proto forge gun. Also, real world infantry rarely "solo kill" real world tanks. Then why should sci-fi infantry "solo kill" sci-fi tanks? Inb4 facts. RL tanks are usually killed solo Assault Dropship Montage Incubus Pilot, AV Specialist, Fat Scout DUST addict
Soraya Xel The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 1049	Posted - 2014.01.11 05:47:00 - [28] - Quote Charlotte O'Dell wrote: So, to answer your question, a very expensive, very well planned tank piloted by a high SP and highly skilled and seasoned pilot should be nigh invincible. Were you aware this is a first person shooter, and that in such a game, you should expect to die from time to time? No, there should be no mechanic where a player is nigh invincible. If you aren't averaging at least a death a match, it really doesn't matter how expensive your tank is, because you aren't actually having to pay for any loss. And hence, you're getting to be invincible for no cost, which is unfair. There should be no manner in this game where a single player is able to become nigh invincible to the other players for the entire match. I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
True Adamance Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 5537	Posted - 2014.01.11 05:47:00 - [29] - Quote Hmmmm I cant really argue why except this. Its not often you see a frigate solo a battleship in EVE. Its not often you see an infantryman solo a Tank. However last night I had 2 forgegun deaths in the same match due to one well placed soldier.. To a Texan like you, a hero is some type of weird sandwich, not some nut who takes on three Gunlogi. Reference = ISK
Soraya Xel The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 1049	Posted - 2014.01.11 05:50:00 - [30] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I-Shayz-I wrote: The balance should be on the players. 3 people in a tank should match 3 AV players. 3 AV players should be better than 1 person in a tank 3 people in a tank should be better than 1 AV player. I think that tanks need to rely more on infantry support than just their tank themselves, whether the infantry is in the tank or not. That's how it used to be...if you had two people in the tank who could jump out and kill AV players easily, then yeah, you should be able to take on more than one AV player. But a solo tank should not be able to take on 5 AV players by himself alone in a militia tank. Came intending to troll. Found unexpected goodpost that makes the point I intended to. Leaving now as if logic fails trolling won't be any better. I-Shayz-I, may I direct you to this post: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1705995#post1705995 This is a concept I've been working on to try and give tanks a superior, but balanced battlefield role that encourages and rewards teamwork. I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate

jerrmy12 kahoalii The Phoenix Federation 324	Posted - 2014.01.11 05:51:00 - [31] - Quote jerrmy12 kahoalii wrote: Leonid Tybalt wrote: Atiim wrote: Aizen Intiki wrote: Reported for being a douche trying to troll people. I'm not even trolling. It's been over 6 months and I have yet to actually see a decent answer to the question at hand. Because it's stupid. A good tank costs a LOT more than a couple of av grenadea carried by one infantryman. They even tend to cost more than a proto heavy suit with a proto forge gun. Also, real world infantry rarely "solo kill" real world tanks. Then why should sci-fi infantry "solo kill" sci-fi tanks? because its a game, but my assault forge gun needs a buff I use a tablet so beware of typos
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 6	Posted - 2014.01.11 06:12:00 - [32] - Quote Personally, I think that vehicle kills are far too limited in Dust currently. Taking a look at tanks, you can only get a "catastrophic kill" currently. Introducing other ways of eliminating tanks and other vehicles as threats on the battlefield opens up more options for game balance around features. Other kills include Mobility Kill (Disable tank/vehicle propulsion, but the vehicle retains full use of its weapons), Firepower Kill (Disable offensive capabilities of a vehicle, even if one turret at a time), and maybe a visual kill? (Knocking out the Camera Drones that give vehicles their magic 3rd person view, forcing the operator into first person) Use a mobility kill to keep a tank in one place, and either run it out of ammo, or disable its main gun, do the actual killing with demolition charges... Should an infantry be able to solo a tank? Absolutely, provided the infantry is outfit to do basically just that...and as a tanker and true logi, infantry EHP needs buffed...Also, tanks are used as more than just mobile killing machines, they should also be looked at as potential mobile cover...and all the other applications tanks where designed for...I want to be able to deploy an HAV Frame with ONLY DEFENSIVE/SUPPORT MODS ON IT
Marad''er Ancient Exiles. Renegade Alliance 145	Posted - 2014.01.11 06:56:00 - [33] - Quote I think so provided the tanks themselves are solo. The moment it takes more than 1 person to down 1 person, it is OP due to spamability. Regardless of the cost GôÉGô¥GôÿGô£Gôö > GôÉGô¢Gô¢ Gÿà¿When will dust get better?Gÿà Forum Warrior LV. 4 \| Warframe is awesome! \| PSN: I-NINJA-ALL-DAY
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 3312	Posted - 2014.01.11 07:02:00 - [34] - Quote Leonid Tybalt wrote: Because it's stupid. A good tank costs a LOT more than a couple of av grenadea carried by one infantryman. They even tend to cost more than a proto heavy suit with a proto forge gun. Also, real world infantry rarely "solo kill" real world tanks. Then why should sci-fi infantry "solo kill" sci-fi tanks? Because it's stupid? So your saying that I should be able to pull 3-6 people out of combat just by driving a tank? isn't that buying a WIN button if I field enough of them then? And how many times are you likely to die in your AV fit? 2-4 times. And at 150-215k a pop, an AVer can easily match the price of a good tank. ~ Lets not go there. This isn't real life, this is a video game. And in real life a solo infantry man can OHK a tank ~ Lets not go there. Look up the Javelin on YouTube and get back to me on that one. ~ Mkay? And while we are bringing up real life facts, 1 = 1. Just saying. CoD -----> <----- WoT Please AR and Tank scrubs, go to your respective games. Leave DUST alone!
Jade Dragonis GRIM MARCH D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 272	Posted - 2014.01.11 07:02:00 - [35] - Quote you hit a tank in the right place and you can one shot a MAddy..... Other than that team work does wonders. 3 of us took out 5 tanks in a match. (dropships didnt count) Forged again? Your welcome.
Soraya Xel The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 1052	Posted - 2014.01.11 07:10:00 - [36] - Quote Marad''er wrote: I think so provided the tanks themselves are solo. The moment it takes more than 1 person to down 1 person, it is OP due to spamability. Regardless of the cost Exactly. Which is why I think they should introduce the MAV as a solo vehicle, and retune the HAV to require three users to gain the full effectiveness of it. So MAVs can replace the current solo tanker role, and the HAV, the unmatched superior on the battlefield, becomes a team effort to operate, and a team effort to take down. I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
daishi mk03 BLACK-GUARD Die Fremdenlegion 558	Posted - 2014.01.11 07:16:00 - [37] - Quote There are many stupid / invalid arguments in here: - a fully fitted tank with a tanker SP character should be invincible <- worst argument ever A proto suit should also be killed by a MLT suit, if catched from behind. This is absolutely right. This is not WoW and characters which level up or sh!t, this is a shooter. You shoot stuff, stuff dies. For the same reason tanks should pop to AV like balloons to needles. Don't talk about ISK costs, since a proto tanks is close to a proto logi suit right now. (maybe a factor of 2, but not like orders of magnitudes) - it should take 3 people to reliable take out a tank crap argument. this would mean calling in one tank, would change numbers on infantry ground to 15 vs 13 in your favor (or our tank steamrolls them) How to fix tanks: MLT / STD tanks should be taken out by a single MLT / STD remote explosive package. MLT / STD tanks should be taken out by 3 MLT / STD swarm volleys. delete adv / proto swarms and give ppl SP back. some tankers I met are stupid "i want to be invincible and have fun shooting other people" scums. To know the true path, but yet, to never follow it. That is possibly the gravest sin. The Scriptures,Book of Missions
Sir Snugglz Red Star. EoN. 242	Posted - 2014.01.11 07:23:00 - [38] - Quote light weapon (swarms) vs heavy attack vehicle...... swarms should be able to solo LAV.... LAV shouldnt be able to solo HAV... therefore, swarms shouldnt solo HAV Now, Heavy weapon (forge) vs HAV Forges does lots of damage to HAV. it is possible to solo if skilled enough
Jade Dragonis GRIM MARCH D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 272	Posted - 2014.01.11 07:25:00 - [39] - Quote Sir Snugglz wrote: light weapon (swarms) vs heavy attack vehicle...... swarms should be able to solo LAV.... LAV shouldnt be able to solo HAV... therefore, swarms shouldnt solo HAV Now, Heavy weapon (forge) vs HAV Forges does lots of damage to HAV. it is possible to solo if skilled enough Breach Forge up the backside will one shot a Maddy. It is possible. Just takes planning. Forged again? Your welcome.
Charlotte O'Dell Fatal Absolution Covert Intervention 1568	Posted - 2014.01.11 07:32:00 - [40] - Quote Atiim wrote: Charlotte O'Dell wrote: Atiim wrote: Title is Self-Explanatory Stop lumping all tankers into the same category. It makes you look stupid. How am I lumping all tankers into a general category? When I said "Self Explanatory", I meant that the title of the thread is the actual question at hand, which does make it "Self Explanatory." Please, show me where I am "lumping all tankers into the same category". In your signature. There are no "scrub" tankers. The only "tankers" I know have been around longer than you've been a forum troll. Everyone else is a FOTM chaser in a tank. Charlotte O'Dell is the highest level unicorn!

Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 3313	Posted - 2014.01.11 07:37:00 - [41] - Quote Sir Snugglz wrote: light weapon (swarms) vs heavy attack vehicle...... swarms should be able to solo LAV.... LAV shouldnt be able to solo HAV... therefore, swarms shouldnt solo HAV Now, Heavy weapon (forge) vs HAV Forges does lots of damage to HAV. it is possible to solo if skilled enough Uhh. Have you seen a 20GJ Particle Cannon in action? I saw a guy rip a tanker's @$$ a new with it on an LAV. And weapon strengths and weaknesses aren't classified by their weight (Sidearm/Light/Heavy). They are classified and balanced around factors such as Range, Damage Type, RPM, etc. Saying that something shouldn't solo simply because of the fact that it is deemed Light and the opponent is deemed Heavy is idiotic at best. If you truly agree that light shouldn't solo heavy, then I expect you to be the first one to like my OP when I make a thread calling for a Shotgun and Nova Knife nerf. As the Shotgun is a Light Weapon and the Nova Knife is a sidearm, so by your logic these two weapons need to be nerfed. LAVs can and should solo HAVs. ~ See the 20GJ Particle Cannon Additionally, if one AV weapon can solo HAVs yet another one can't, then why use anything other than that AV weapon? There is no good reason as to why something should be theoretically 100% better at something than another. TL;DR? With that logic, Shotguns & Nova Knifes are OP. CoD -----> <----- WoT Please AR and Tank 'scrubs', go to your respective games. Leave DUST alone!
Charlotte O'Dell Fatal Absolution Covert Intervention 1569	Posted - 2014.01.11 07:40:00 - [42] - Quote I like when people use the argument: 1 grunt = 1x 1 tank = 3x 12g+4t=24x Well that makes sense until you realize that one really good tanker can take on 6 average tankers easy, so 1gt=18x Then: 12g+4t = 15g+1gt The balance of power depends on the skill of tankers involved. 6 tanks don't guarantee victory. 1 good tank does. Therefore, tanks require a lot of skill. Winning a battle requires vehicles, but it doesn't require tank spam. (Just took on 6 enemy tanks by myself. Killed 14. Lost 2) Charlotte O'Dell is the highest level unicorn!
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 3313	Posted - 2014.01.11 07:45:00 - [43] - Quote Charlotte O'Dell wrote: In your signature. There are no "scrub" tankers. The only "tankers" I know have been around longer than you've been a forum troll. Everyone else is a FOTM chaser in a tank. The terms "AR Scrub" and "Tank Scrub" refer to the small group of radicals who want this game to be nothing but a CoD clone but simply in outer space (the "AR Scrubs") or the other small group of radicals who wants this game to be nothing but a Tank simulator (referred to as the "Tank Scrubs"). When I use terms such as "Tank Scrub" or "LOLTank Brigader", I am not referring to all tankers. Just the small group of people (you know who they are) who clearly want an imbalance between V/AV that favors vehicles ~ And vice versa with the "AR Scrubs" term. Forum Troll? I guess not allowing the LOLTank Brigade to shovel bull$#!t down my throat is considered trolling then. But fine, I guess I'll edit my signature. Mkay? CoD -----> <----- WoT Please AR and Tank 'scrubs', go to your respective games. Leave DUST alone!
Denchlad 7 The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 52	Posted - 2014.01.11 08:09:00 - [44] - Quote Irony of it is is that most people seem to want to go back to 1.6 Tanks and AV. Hmm. If you can't accept change, you will fail in this world.
Eurydice Itzhak Providence Guard Templis CALSF 323	Posted - 2014.01.11 08:56:00 - [45] - Quote Slim Winning wrote: Because most tankers suck at tactics and skill. Hence is why they're in the tank to begin with. You don't here anyone saying "a starter dropsuit shouldn't be able to solo my prototype dropsuit." Being outplayed is being outplayed. Only delusional tankers can't accept this. You can't simply spend your way to an easy button. A starter dropsuit killed your proto dropsuit? I feel bad for you son. I got 99 problems but being awful ain't one.
Snagman 313 Carbon 7 CRONOS. 263	Posted - 2014.01.11 09:00:00 - [46] - Quote Actually quite a constructive thread, good work keeping it in line Attim. Just to throw my 2 pence in. HAV's while tough are soloable but currently only really by dedicated AV'ers, yes someone with lower skills but good tactics or a lot of luck can manage it but to regularly do it you need a huge chunk of SP in the associated skills, not just weapon skills but PG and CPU skills to allow you to mount Complex dmg mods especially if you're using the FG on a heavy suit. Now this was were I had an interesting conversation with a fellow the other day, lets just say I took out his state Gunnloggi in short order and I received a bit of mail over it. Without going too much into it after the first couple of rude messages he mentioned that he had 14 mil SP invested in HAV skills and that no way I should have killed his tank. This got me thinking, now I'm not a hardcore player by any means but I have just over 17 mil SP and I'd say at least 14 mil in skills for my AV build maybe a bit more now I think about it. Regardless anyway here we have 2 players with similar SP one with a Shield HAV using a high end blaster turret designed for killing infantry and then the other with a Proto AFG and basic AV nades rigged for killing Tanks. Now I did have to use 1 and a bit mags to put him down as he managed to hit his shield booster as I finished off his shields and I had to start again but if he had simply used his mobility to run away or called in some infantry I would have been done and if I had been in a sqd and not running solo I might have not needed the second mag. So technically speaking we both lacked some tactics but we can't always have it the way we want this is war and we must make do with what we have. Now I did finish this guy off solo but also because he was solo which happens rarely the thing that surprised me most what how much he was sure that in no way should a single AV'er present such a threat to HAVs. It's quite a common view at the moment mostly by the FOTM guys I think. However I think that a person such as myself who has accumulated a fair bit of SP and then invested it and time in building a top heavy FG build specifically for busting vehicles should present a real threat to an equivalent level HAV and an extremely high threat to a low level mlt one. I certainly don't want a change back to the 1.6 level tanks, the was boring for me but I think there should be a bigger gap between mlt HAVs and proper ones. Also a bit off topic but the run and hide from tanks argument only works in matches other than Ambush. It almost makes my blood boil to see this statement especially when referring to ambush when you get 4 plus HAVs rolling a convoy in a tiny open map and it takes the whole of the rest of the team to run AV to deal with them if you keep your 3 av to 1 HAV ratio, just for someone to say "Hey where's the rest of the enemy team?" and then you see a squad of infantry charging in better switch to my sidearm!!! oh there's a HAV!!! .......dead....... My bank balance can take it but then what are the Newberries supposed to do? We haven't got a Highsec like EVE. Closed Beta AV veteran I drink because I play Dust
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 1490	Posted - 2014.01.11 09:01:00 - [47] - Quote Denchlad 7 wrote: Irony of it is is that most people seem to want to go back to 1.6 Tanks and AV. Hmm. Oh no. No. Hell no. Keep the beefier tanks. Give back the 1.6 AV then tweak until crispy on both sides.
Eurydice Itzhak Providence Guard Templis CALSF 323	Posted - 2014.01.11 09:04:00 - [48] - Quote Snagman I won't quote you and make the thread huge but ambush needs to be removed from the game. It's a garbage game mode that doesnt even make sense lore wise.
R F Gyro Clones 4u 953	Posted - 2014.01.11 09:21:00 - [49] - Quote I wasn't expecting much from this thread, but I'm pleasantly surprised to see that reason seems to be returning to this debate. I've given likes to a bunch of posts here. Quote: My personal favourite approach is for tanks to be fairly weak by default, but if there are three players in one then the tank owner can enable "crew mode" at which point the driver gets the front small turret, the gunner gets the large turret (and also a limited field of view) and the top gunner (commander) gets the external view but is the only one who can activate modules. In "crew mode" the tank gets significant bonuses to EHP and speed, making it worth at least 3, probably 4 or 5, infantry. https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1625276#post1625276 RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
Broonfondle Majikthies Dogs of War Gaming Zero-Day 704	Posted - 2014.01.11 09:28:00 - [50] - Quote I solo tanks regularly With basic gear "...where Bylothgar the Ill-postured was made King of the People With No Name But Decent Footwear"

Soraya Xel The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 1057	Posted - 2014.01.11 09:29:00 - [51] - Quote R F Gyro: If you look at my version, I think having it dual mode might be a bit unnecessarily complicated. But we have the same general idea. Though my thought is that HAVs should become crew-based vehicles, since MAVs and mechs are both expected, which either/or could fill the solo vehicle role. I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
Marad''er Ancient Exiles. Renegade Alliance 150	Posted - 2014.01.11 09:34:00 - [52] - Quote Broonfondle Majikthies wrote: I solo tanks regularly With basic gear And I stomp on proto squads With basic commando and melee only GôÉGô¥GôÿGô£Gôö > GôÉGô¢Gô¢ Gÿà¿When will dust get better?Gÿà Forum Warrior LV. 4 \| Warframe is awesome! \| PSN: I-NINJA-ALL-DAY
Vulpes Dolosus SVER True Blood Public Disorder. 589	Posted - 2014.01.11 09:35:00 - [53] - Quote Because this is a team-based game. Attackers need multiple roles to win, tanks can't hack objectives and even with the best tanks, concentrated AV threaten them. Defender's need of teamwork should be obvious. Tanks don't win matches (ambush aside), teams win matches. Tanks are just another piece on the chess board. Dropship Specialist Kills- Incubus: 4; Pythons: 1; Other DS: 28 Gêå1; Tanks: 27 Gêå2 1/1
R F Gyro Clones 4u 953	Posted - 2014.01.11 09:37:00 - [54] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: R F Gyro: If you look at my version, I think having it dual mode might be a bit unnecessarily complicated. But we have the same general idea. Though my thought is that HAVs should become crew-based vehicles, since MAVs and mechs are both expected, which either/or could fill the solo vehicle role. Yeah, that would work too. One would be harder for the game programmers, the other harder for the art department. I'd be happy for CCP to decide which to implement. RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
Summ Dude OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 96	Posted - 2014.01.11 09:39:00 - [55] - Quote Just thought I'd pop in real quick to say: Attim, I think this is a very good question to ask. And also, I can't help but notice that no one on the anti tank nerf side has actually answered it yet. I've seen a lot of random ideas given, and some anecdotes here and there, but really no solid logical definitive answer. Anyway, I'm actually really liking the idea of HAVs requiring 3 people to run effectively, and then requiring 3 AVers to be destroyed.
R F Gyro Clones 4u 958	Posted - 2014.01.11 09:40:00 - [56] - Quote Vulpes Dolosus wrote: Because this is a team-based game. Attackers need multiple roles to win, tanks can't hack objectives and even with the best tanks, concentrated AV threaten them. Defender's need of teamwork should be obvious. Tanks don't win matches (ambush aside), teams win matches. Tanks are just another piece on the chess board. Not right now. Right now, tanks do win matches, and all you need for most skirmish is one of the tanks to fit a light gun seat so that it can ferry around a single infantry player for hacking. Concentrated AV threatens individual tanks. Four AV players working as a team don't threaten 4 tanks working as a team, in any meaningful way. RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
Marad''er Ancient Exiles. Renegade Alliance 150	Posted - 2014.01.11 09:41:00 - [57] - Quote Vulpes Dolosus wrote: Because this is a team-based game. Attackers need multiple roles to win, tanks can't hack objectives and even with the best tanks, concentrated AV threaten them. Defender's need of teamwork should be obvious. Tanks don't win matches (ambush aside), teams win matches. Tanks are just another piece on the chess board. You're right. Tanks are like having queens on a chess board... From an ambush perspective since that's mainly what I play GôÉGô¥GôÿGô£Gôö > GôÉGô¢Gô¢ Gÿà¿When will dust get better?Gÿà Forum Warrior LV. 4 \| Warframe is awesome! \| PSN: I-NINJA-ALL-DAY
Soraya Xel The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 1059	Posted - 2014.01.11 09:41:00 - [58] - Quote Vulpes Dolosus wrote: Tanks are just another piece on the chess board. Yeah. If on that chess board any pawn can upgrade to being a queen at any time, from any where. And the queen now has to be checkmated just to hold it in place, and it can only be killed by another queen. I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
Ghost Kaisar Titans of Phoenix Legacy Rising 1746	Posted - 2014.01.11 09:42:00 - [59] - Quote Here is my problem with the whole tank argument. "I shouldn't be soloed, this thing is expensive and cost me a lot of SP" Well guess what. My Minja scout is freaking expensive as well, and cost me a ton of SP. Doesn't stop that freaking Duvolle focused from scanning me. And it shouldn't. Because the Duvolle focused is made to scan me. It cost SP and is hard to fit, and expensive. It's doing it's job. Proto AV costs SP and is expensive. It shouldn't be the bane of tanks incarnate, but it should sure as hell scare one away. Right now, Tanks laugh in the face of AV. AV needs to scare tanks. Not kill them, but firmly tell them "NO. GO PLAY SOMEWHERE ELSE". It should become a definate "Leave or Die" scenario. If you go, we won't have enough time to kill you. If you wanna stay here there is a good chance you will die. Your choice. Dropsuits face this same issue as well. A good proto suit is strong, but not invincible. If you keep running into enemy fire, you will die. Not immediatly, but eventually. Even in Proto dropsuits, enemy fire creates the same "Leave or Die" scenario. Why should tanks be any different with regards to AV? Get over it. If you don't play to win in FW, then you're playing for Caldari. -Patrick57 Minmatar. In Rust we trust.
R F Gyro Clones 4u 958	Posted - 2014.01.11 09:43:00 - [60] - Quote Summ Dude wrote: Just thought I'd pop in real quick to say: Attim, I think this is a very good question to ask. And also, I can't help but notice that no one on the anti tank nerf side has actually answered it yet. I've seen a lot of random ideas given, and some anecdotes here and there, but really no solid logical definitive answer. If you search back through the forums you'll see that people have been asking this question for at least 6 months. And no, there has never been a decent answer. I am grateful to Atiim for keeping at it, and taking on all the hate and rage that resulted. I pretty much gave up months ago. He has stuck with it and it looks like he just might be finally getting somewhere. RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus

Summ Dude OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 97	Posted - 2014.01.11 09:49:00 - [61] - Quote R F Gyro wrote: If you search back through the forums you'll see that people have been asking this question for at least 6 months. And no, there has never been a decent answer. I am grateful to Atiim for keeping at it, and taking on all the hate and rage that resulted. I pretty much gave up months ago. He has stuck with it and it looks like he just might be finally getting somewhere. I'll add that I feel like most of the AV grief comes from Swarm Launcher users. I only use the FG, and I mean, it's actually not terrible as a tank-deterrent. Of course I'll never finish one off by myself unless the tanker happens to be particularly terrible. Of course this could be somewhat solved by adding points for deterring/damaging vehicles (soon please CCP?), but that's a debate for another time. But anyway, yea I don't really see why multiple people of one role should be required to take out one person of another role. That would seem to make the latter role ostensibly better.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 1491	Posted - 2014.01.11 09:54:00 - [62] - Quote It boils down to "No, I wanna be the biggest badass around." Bluntly most of the reasons given by tankers are countered by AV players. "I spent X ISK so I should be invulnerable to Infantry weapons." -AV players spend lots of ISK on the dropsuit fits that effectively blow the crap out of tanks. "It's a tank, you cannot solo a tank IRL" -Go look up the word "Javelin" on wikipedia. See also: T.O.W. Missiles. "I spent 10 million SP into tanks, I've earned the right to be the terror of the battlefield." -I have spent 15 million SP optimizing my forge gun suits for killing tanks. I should be the terror of YOU. "I don't want to be killed by infantry, I want to be killed by tanks." -It's an Infantry game. suck it up. "I'm here to fight other tanks." -World of Tanks is That way. -----> "If you buff AV dropships will be worthless again." -Here's an idea... BUFF DROPSHIPS TOO! "You just want to one-shot tanks..." -Actually no, I like the new tanks, I don't like the neutered AV to go with the newer, beefier tanks. This is pretty much the list. Jesus, I managed to be (mostly) not snide. I must be getting sick.
Summ Dude OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 97	Posted - 2014.01.11 10:02:00 - [63] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: "It's a tank, you cannot solo a tank IRL" -Go look up the word "Javelin" on wikipedia. See also: T.O.W. Missiles. One more quick thing on this subject, as I believe Attim already mentioned, this is a video game. It's not real life. Real life warfare isn't dictated by balance or very specific roles with strengths and weaknesses designed purposefully. Real life warfare is about doing whatever gets the job done in the most efficient way. But I don't want that here, and I don't think anyone else really does either. If this were to be more "realistic", shouldn't we just have a handful of guns that are designed to be way better than everything else? There's no diversity in this kind of realism, so honestly it really has no place in Dust. That's my opinion, anyway.
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 4280	Posted - 2014.01.11 10:20:00 - [64] - Quote 1 AV player, alone, should be able to negate the value of one player in a tank. Given the difference in price between a cheap tank and a cheap AV fit (minimum of 70,000 ISK vs. minimum of NOTHING AT ALL FREE STARTER FIT), as well as the difference between a high-tier tank and a high-tier AV fit (potentially as much as 500,000 ISK vs. around 200,000 ISK), it's reasonable to expect that the tank CAN survive when piloted competently against an equivalent level of AV weaponry. At the moment, Standard HAVs are balanced as almost-Prototype in capabilities, and Militia aren't far enough behind. Standard HAVs need to be where they are as long as there are no more powerful options, but Militia needs at least a small nerf to make it feel like a significant upgrade when you unlock the improved models. Also, if you want AV players to actually devote themselves to AV, they need to be REWARDED for their efforts - just like everyone else is. We need WPs for damaging vehicles - this could come with a reduction in WP reward for the actual kill. Instead of 150 for vehicle destruction, you could only be given 75 or maybe even 50 WP, but with 25 WP for every 1000 HP damage dealt to the target. (NOTE: numbers are made up and not necessarily indicative of a sensible value). In addition to making AV a rewarding task in terms of WP earnings, it would also make high-tier tanks more valuable when killed, because of the extra damage needed to take them down. Likewise, it would make AV think more about when they attack vehicles - hitting that HAV while the hardeners are up won't deal enough damage to net you the WP bonus, but waiting until it's on cooldown means you'll rake in points with every shot.
MINA Longstrike 2Shitz 1Giggle 201	Posted - 2014.01.11 10:22:00 - [65] - Quote Atiim wrote: Charlotte O'Dell wrote: well, an 80k isk sica should be soloed, yes, but my half million isk tank should be right about where it is bc i invested half my Sp in it. So, to answer your question, a very expensive, very well planned tank piloted by a high SP and highly skilled and seasoned pilot should be nigh invincible. A mlt tank piloted by a noob should get soloed every single time someone tries. The quickest fix would be to nerf mlt tank fitting power AND buff AV so that AV can actually punch through tanks when their hardeners are off. It usually takes 3 shots from a swarm or forge, but a bad tanker is gone by the time the second shot lands, and a good tanker will only let one hit. Then what about the very expensive AV suits with high SP investments and highly skilled and seasoned AVers? Should they be able to demolish tanks left and right? Lets not use the ISK argument here. A half decent AV suit can range from 150-215k with the guarantee to die at least 2-4 times. 600-860k > 500k. I firmly believe that if a seasoned pilot should be "un-stoppable" then a seasoned AVer should also be able to become "un-stoppable" Yes? No? Maybe So? Though you would need to be real careful when buffing AV. It could do some serious harm to Dropships if over-done even slightly. And we all know how CCP is always reasonable with their nerfs Tanks are meant to be line breakers and highly disruptive to infantry - or to other vehicles - perhaps in some regards they're succeeding a bit too well at it but I believe the problem lies mostly in cost - increase the cost on mlt tanks to 250k and its much easier to go into the red with them, increase the cost on std hulls & large turrets and you don't mess around with lavs or dropships. Now in regards to proto av, I see it as strong area denial for light av (which I feel should be stronger while hardeners are down) if you want to punch through hardeners with light av you should need a friend or you should be jumping up to heavy av and if you sincerely want a vehicle to die with or without hardeners you should be calling an anti vehicle hav. Infantries strengths will always be positional - a forge gunner on a tower can be a real nightmare. The problem with trying to balance tanks is that they're designed to be disruptive and they very much make infantry feel marginalized when the anti infantry tank is slaughtering them and their 3 basic av grenades & 2 mlt swarm shots won't make the mean tank go away... And then there's the other side of the issue - av weapons that are too powerful don't even give vehicles time to react, this was a major problem with av grenades and forge guns in 1.6 and if some people I've talked to get their way it would be an issue going forward too - the problem with this is it leaves vehicle specialists unable to do their 'job' leaving them marginalized and in some builds making their vehicles expensive coffins (an enforcer in 1.6 could cost upwards of 3m each). I'm not saying that the tank that tries to fight 3 breach forgers should meet any more success than the infantry who wants to be able to kill tanks with just his mlt swarm launcher while hardeners are up. What I am trying to say is that in many ways the roles are just extremely antagonistic to each other and its unlikely that players are ever going to be 'happy' with something that affects their game in a 'negative' way... I mean if people are going to complain that every weapon under the sun is OP it only stands to reason that they'll complain harder when they can't fight the big mean tank with their rifles and they'll complain even harder when the big mean tank turns on its hardeners and wanders off when they're on cooldown.
R F Gyro Clones 4u 959	Posted - 2014.01.11 10:23:00 - [66] - Quote Summ Dude wrote: I'll add that I feel like most of the AV grief comes from Swarm Launcher users. I only use the FG, and I mean, it's actually not terrible as a tank-deterrent. Of course I'll never finish one off by myself unless the tanker happens to be particularly terrible. Of course this could be somewhat solved by adding points for deterring/damaging vehicles (soon please CCP?), but that's a debate for another time. But anyway, yea I don't really see why multiple people of one role should be required to take out one person of another role. That would seem to make the latter role ostensibly better. IMHO, the counter to swarm launchers should be an active module, such as flares or chaff. Vehicles should get a notification of some sort when swarms lock on to them, and then they fire off the countermeasures which destroy the swarms. In order to take a vehicle out with swarms you'd need to overwhelm the countermeasures. RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
Snagman 313 Carbon 7 CRONOS. 265	Posted - 2014.01.11 10:29:00 - [67] - Quote Summ Dude wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: "It's a tank, you cannot solo a tank IRL" -Go look up the word "Javelin" on wikipedia. See also: T.O.W. Missiles. One more quick thing on this subject, as I believe Attim already mentioned, this is a video game. It's not real life. Real life warfare isn't dictated by balance or very specific roles with strengths and weaknesses designed purposefully. Real life warfare is about doing whatever gets the job done in the most efficient way. But I don't want that here, and I don't think anyone else really does either. If this were to be more "realistic", shouldn't we just have a handful of guns that are designed to be way better than everything else? There's no diversity in this kind of realism, so honestly it really has no place in Dust. That's my opinion, anyway. That's a good point Summ but on the counter stroke no weapon in dust can single shot a tank as a Javelin does (I know I shouldn't, but I have trained on the system so bear with me) so I think the balance is there, as even if I load a Proto Breach FG with 2 complex dmg mods and my pro 5 and hit the weak point it won't kill a normal HAV in 1 shot. Maybe if the numpty deliberately fitted it to die but he'll always have something left if he was at max health before the shot. We shouldn't look too hard at IRL issues (That whole topic is riddled with inaccuracy) but that issue of the Mercs as in should an Pro AV vet be able to effectively solo a Pro AV vet Tanker and so on. From what I have seen over the time of this game it has always to me been a rock, paper, scissors type game with lot's of overlap in between so everyone has a chance i.e a bad AR player with lot's of SP and Proto gear will do well in CQC but a good heavy/HMG player with little SP and gear will likely beat him at close range. Closed Beta AV veteran I drink because I play Dust
Snagman 313 Carbon 7 CRONOS. 265	Posted - 2014.01.11 10:32:00 - [68] - Quote R F Gyro wrote: Summ Dude wrote: I'll add that I feel like most of the AV grief comes from Swarm Launcher users. I only use the FG, and I mean, it's actually not terrible as a tank-deterrent. Of course I'll never finish one off by myself unless the tanker happens to be particularly terrible. Of course this could be somewhat solved by adding points for deterring/damaging vehicles (soon please CCP?), but that's a debate for another time. But anyway, yea I don't really see why multiple people of one role should be required to take out one person of another role. That would seem to make the latter role ostensibly better. IMHO, the counter to swarm launchers should be an active module, such as flares or chaff. Vehicles should get a notification of some sort when swarms lock on to them, and then they fire off the countermeasures which destroy the swarms. In order to take a vehicle out with swarms you'd need to overwhelm the countermeasures. Agreed, this is needed for DS pilots. Closed Beta AV veteran I drink because I play Dust
R F Gyro Clones 4u 960	Posted - 2014.01.11 10:33:00 - [69] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: Tanks are meant to be line breakers and highly disruptive to infantry - or to other vehicles - perhaps in some regards they're succeeding a bit too well at it but I believe the problem lies mostly in cost - increase the cost on mlt tanks to 250k and its much easier to go into the red with them, increase the cost on std hulls & large turrets and you don't mess around with lavs or dropships. Now in regards to proto av, I see it as strong area denial for light av (which I feel should be stronger while hardeners are down) if you want to punch through hardeners with light av you should need a friend or you should be jumping up to heavy av and if you sincerely want a vehicle to die with or without hardeners you should be calling an anti vehicle hav. Infantries strengths will always be positional - a forge gunner on a tower can be a real nightmare. The problem with trying to balance tanks is that they're designed to be disruptive and they very much make infantry feel marginalized when the anti infantry tank is slaughtering them and their 3 basic av grenades & 2 mlt swarm shots won't make the mean tank go away... And then there's the other side of the issue - av weapons that are too powerful don't even give vehicles time to react, this was a major problem with av grenades and forge guns in 1.6 and if some people I've talked to get their way it would be an issue going forward too - the problem with this is it leaves vehicle specialists unable to do their 'job' leaving them marginalized and in some builds making their vehicles expensive coffins (an enforcer in 1.6 could cost upwards of 3m each). I'm not saying that the tank that tries to fight 3 breach forgers should meet any more success than the infantry who wants to be able to kill tanks with just his mlt swarm launcher while hardeners are up. What I am trying to say is that in many ways the roles are just extremely antagonistic to each other and its unlikely that players are ever going to be 'happy' with something that affects their game in a 'negative' way... I mean if people are going to complain that every weapon under the sun is OP it only stands to reason that they'll complain harder when they can't fight the big mean tank with their rifles and they'll complain even harder when the big mean tank turns on its hardeners and wanders off when they're on cooldown. When you say "meant to be" and "designed to be", are you talking about in real life or in Dust? If you mean IRL then that has no bearing on balance in the game; if you mean in Dust then I don't see evidence of this in statements from CCP. This isn't just two sides with different viewpoints not agreeing, to be honest. Even once perfect balance is achieved between A and B, each side will feel the other is too strong; we get that. This is about the two sides not even agreeing on what to balance on. Many tank specialists feel it should be balanced on ISK, SP and "its a tank". Others feel that since the #1 constraint in Dust battles is the 16 player limit, you have to balance first and foremost on number of players involved. RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
Tallen Ellecon KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 1171	Posted - 2014.01.11 10:39:00 - [70] - Quote Charlotte O'Dell wrote: well, an 80k isk sica should be soloed, yes, but my half million isk tank should be right about where it is bc i invested half my Sp in it. So, to answer your question, a very expensive, very well planned tank piloted by a high SP and highly skilled and seasoned pilot should be nigh invincible. A mlt tank piloted by a noob should get soloed every single time someone tries. The quickest fix would be to nerf mlt tank fitting power AND buff AV so that AV can actually punch through tanks when their hardeners are off. It usually takes 3 shots from a swarm or forge, but a bad tanker is gone by the time the second shot lands, and a good tanker will only let one hit. I have very expensive suits with over 15 mil SP invested into them...... should I not require multiple people to take me down? Expensive tanks sound like a WMD funded by a corp and best left for PC and important matches. Tarn chose peace. Tallen chose war. Where is my Gallente sidearm? SoonGäó514

Broonfondle Majikthies Dogs of War Gaming Zero-Day 704	Posted - 2014.01.11 10:41:00 - [71] - Quote Marad''er wrote: Broonfondle Majikthies wrote: I solo tanks regularly With basic gear And I stomp on proto squads With basic commando and melee only Sure why not. My setup: Basic scout Biotic mods RE's AV / flux nades Place RE's, stand back, lob nades to remove shields, set off RE's - tank down "...where Bylothgar the Ill-postured was made King of the People With No Name But Decent Footwear"
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 1495	Posted - 2014.01.11 11:14:00 - [72] - Quote Broonfondle Majikthies wrote: Marad''er wrote: Broonfondle Majikthies wrote: I solo tanks regularly With basic gear And I stomp on proto squads With basic commando and melee only Sure why not. My setup: Basic scout Biotic mods RE's AV / flux nades Place RE's, stand back, lob nades to remove shields, set off RE's - tank down Just stick 6 RE to the front bumper of a militia jeep and ram the jerk. The fun comes when you realize that a bug farting on your bumper will instantly kill you and make you miss the tank kill. DUST needs more suicide gank.
Qn1f3 Gallente Federation 32	Posted - 2014.01.11 11:23:00 - [73] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Personally, I think that vehicle kills are far too limited in Dust currently. Taking a look at tanks, you can only get a "catastrophic kill" currently. Introducing other ways of eliminating tanks and other vehicles as threats on the battlefield opens up more options for game balance around features. Other kills include Mobility Kill (Disable tank/vehicle propulsion, but the vehicle retains full use of its weapons), Firepower Kill (Disable offensive capabilities of a vehicle, even if one turret at a time), and maybe a visual kill? (Knocking out the Camera Drones that give vehicles their magic 3rd person view, forcing the operator into first person) Use a mobility kill to keep a tank in one place, and either run it out of ammo, or disable its main gun, do the actual killing with demolition charges... Should an infantry be able to solo a tank? Absolutely, provided the infantry is outfit to do basically just that...and as a tanker and true logi, infantry EHP needs buffed...Also, tanks are used as more than just mobile killing machines, they should also be looked at as potential mobile cover...and all the other applications tanks where designed for...I want to be able to deploy an HAV Frame with ONLY DEFENSIVE/SUPPORT MODS ON IT These are interesting thoughts, that might require a dedicated logi or yourself being a logi to return your vehicle to an effective state. This applies to all vehicles, singularly be able to target turrets and other devices on vehicles with both offensive and restoring measures. Maybe with a repair gun or a new piece of equipment. When I was reading through this thread and many other threads with the same or similar topics, I came up with the idea. That the ability to mount "vechicular mines" onto vehicles would've been an interesting addition to the current pretty straight forward way of battling with vehicles. And for DS maybe some kind of "sink mine" or "carpet bombing". I realize this might not be in agreement with lore. But it would tip the strategical scale of vehicular combat, to induce more strategical combat. If you are chased and have mines eqiupped, that could save you or make you the victor. If the interceptor is seeing red for that easy kill. Also I wish that guerilla warfare would be a more valid tactic than it actually is today. As of now, the team that stacks most tanks wins(if we consider the drivers equal in skill). Maybe but Flux Launchers on LAV's to enable them helping out with taking tanks down but not being able to do so by themselves. Couple that with another LAV using mines driving past a HAV and locking him in. I'm trying to visualize potential scenarios.
Coleman Gray GunFall Mobilization Covert Intervention 968	Posted - 2014.01.11 11:29:00 - [74] - Quote Before the last patch, I would say Tanks was to expensive in Isk and SP for it to be okay for them to be solo'd, but now I'm not sure, as a Tanker yes I looove this patch, Tanks stat and gameplay wise and SP wise are where they should be, but now I feel their a little too cheap for what they are. I like what CCP has done with the whole Tank and AV balancing but I think they may have messed about with two many digits and where they fix'd one problem it's caused new ones. Swarm launchers needed a nerf, that is a fact since it was costing players million+ isk just to be solo'd by one man in a cheap suit (cheap in comparison to the tanks anyway) But it shouldn't have been both damage and range, should've been one or the other. Tanks used to be to soft for what you paid for them, But now with the new tank stats, those prices would seem okay to me. If Preparation is half of the battle and knowing is the other half, Then there is no need to fight.
Monkey MAC Lost Millennium 1548	Posted - 2014.01.11 11:30:00 - [75] - Quote 1 Tank = 1AV 1 AV > Tank > Infantry Infantry AV is a defensive weapon, that is when it's meant to be used. We are not meant to spend matches as AV chasing tanks around for the kill. Infantry AV is used when the tank comes to you. That's why part of it being so immobile, I'm not saying a tank should be popped easily, but AV should suprress Tanks with ease. On the front line where it counts. Charlotte, your tank should never be nigh invincible, no matter how much it cost you. Instead ask for proto modded tanks to cost 250,000 Tanks 514 I told you, I bloody well told you. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
Mortedeamor 1209	Posted - 2014.01.11 11:32:00 - [76] - Quote news flash they are Im puerto rican we rage deal with it
Leonid Tybalt Dark Knightz Corp. 121	Posted - 2014.01.11 13:05:00 - [77] - Quote Atiim wrote: Leonid Tybalt wrote: Because it's stupid. A good tank costs a LOT more than a couple of av grenadea carried by one infantryman. They even tend to cost more than a proto heavy suit with a proto forge gun. Also, real world infantry rarely "solo kill" real world tanks. Then why should sci-fi infantry "solo kill" sci-fi tanks? Because it's stupid? So your saying that I should be able to pull 3-6 people out of combat just by driving a tank? isn't that buying a WIN button if I field enough of them then? And how many times are you likely to die in your AV fit? 2-4 times. And at 150-215k a pop, an AVer can easily match the price of a good tank. ~ Lets not go there. This isn't real life, this is a video game. And in real life a solo infantry man can OHK a tank ~ Lets not go there. Look up the Javelin on YouTube and get back to me on that one. ~ Mkay? And while we are bringing up real life facts, 1 = 1. Just saying. Erm, you're not in any position to school me about tanks buddy. I know about the javelin. I also happen to know that the Javelin relies on a thermal signatures to guide the payload, which is fine... When you use it against old, outdated and obsolete WW2-era tanks (the kind most 3rd world countries use, which are the expected enemies for most industrial nations). However, when you look at MODERN tanks (like the more recent version of the Leopard 2), equipped with Saab Barracuda camouflage system, smoke launchers, tungsten/ceramic alloy turret with slatted armor (that covers pretty much the entire top of the tank, usually considered to be a tanks weakest point besides the tank treads, designed SPECIFICALLY to counter anti-tank missiles like the javelins top attack angle function) it's a veeeery different story, because it's rarely even a question if your puny, man portable javelin missile will be able to destroy the tank, but more a question if you'll even be able to get it to lock on target due to the tank having a ****** up heat signature that your little javelin won't be able to recognize. Most serious, modern tanks of today have these kinds or countermeasures making it pretty much impossible for a singular man-portable anti-tank system to destroy them. And then we haven't even begun to cover prototype systems in development that features anti-missile capabilities (they shoot down the missile before it hits). So yeah, I went there... As to your other questions, no I don't think it should take 3-6 people, but 2-3 would be reasonable. And no, it's not a "win button" because tanks still can't enter buildings, climb stairs or hack objectives (you know that little detail required to WIN the match?) And no, your good AV-fit will not match a GOOD tank fit. Do you even know what prototype large turrets cost?
Leonid Tybalt Dark Knightz Corp. 121	Posted - 2014.01.11 13:15:00 - [78] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: It boils down to "No, I wanna be the biggest badass around." Bluntly most of the reasons given by tankers are countered by AV players. "I spent X ISK so I should be invulnerable to Infantry weapons." -AV players spend lots of ISK on the dropsuit fits that effectively blow the crap out of tanks. "It's a tank, you cannot solo a tank IRL" -Go look up the word "Javelin" on wikipedia. See also: T.O.W. Missiles. "I spent 10 million SP into tanks, I've earned the right to be the terror of the battlefield." -I have spent 15 million SP optimizing my forge gun suits for killing tanks. I should be the terror of YOU. "I don't want to be killed by infantry, I want to be killed by tanks." -It's an Infantry game. suck it up. "I'm here to fight other tanks." -World of Tanks is That way. -----> "If you buff AV dropships will be worthless again." -Here's an idea... BUFF DROPSHIPS TOO! "You just want to one-shot tanks..." -Actually no, I like the new tanks, I don't like the neutered AV to go with the newer, beefier tanks. This is pretty much the list. Jesus, I managed to be (mostly) not snide. I must be getting sick. Aside from having already crushed the old "javelin-argument" with my previous post, what makes you say that this is an infantry game? Got any proof of that? I'd say that the very fact that the game even features driveable vehicles is proof enough that this IS NOT an infantry game.
TheD1CK Dead Man's Game 358	Posted - 2014.01.11 13:36:00 - [79] - Quote RE/Plama Cannon/AV nades with this fitting I can damn near solo any tank, the problem is the variables in situations - HAV may retreat too soon, leaving me ineffective at range - HAV may have gunners ready to take me out when I ninja them - HAV may have more than one hardener equipped - HAV may have 5 more HAV's behind him - HAV may be backed up by AI It takes skill and timing to destroy HAV's which is fair enough, the issues are that there is too many HAV's allowed on maps (needs to cap at 4) and too many tankers claim they deserve to be this powerful which is no way true MLT tanks are defeatable but not when supported by squads of good AI and STD tanks... I've took out a lot, but their modules offer them way too much protection Minmatar Demolitions Specialist Plasma Cannon Pro
Beld Errmon The Southern Legion The Umbra Combine 1223	Posted - 2014.01.11 13:38:00 - [80] - Quote I am amazed that at this stage you geriatric morons manage to let Atiim play you like a ******* harp, he basically walks into the room and asks you what you think about the rain, and you lot swallow it like paris hilton in a sex tape. Good AV can still solo a tank, but bad AV can't, because bad AV can't solo a tank retards think that its broken, arguments are made in favor of returning it to the ways of old where 2 proto AV guys wtfBBQ a tank, and we repeat the cycle of stupid, while i don't believe we are where tank vs AV needs to be, but this "guy" would have had tanks nerfed last patch when they were terrible its no stretch of the imagination where he'd like to see them now, of course this is a pointless argument too make really, many of you will settle for no less than the complete removal of everything but the LAV.

SGT NOVA STAR Ahrendee Mercenaries 172	Posted - 2014.01.11 14:00:00 - [81] - Quote It was called chromosome, devs didn't like it, so they fixed it. Next. VAYU! I CHOOSE YOU!
Racro 01 Arifistan 501st Knights of Leanbox INTERGALACTIC WARPIGS 106	Posted - 2014.01.11 14:17:00 - [82] - Quote Denchlad 7 wrote: Irony of it is is that most people seem to want to go back to 1.6 Tanks and AV. Hmm. all ccp had to do from 1.6 was nerf down that there proto av damge and av nades. everything but proto AV was ifne. but oh no. vehciles got compeltley overhauled and the av nerfed happend ( av nerf is too heavy though give them extra 50 dmage on thes swarms and make it 200m lock range.)
Takron Nistrom Tinfoil Hatz 171	Posted - 2014.01.11 14:31:00 - [83] - Quote Logi Bro wrote: sigh This is obvious bait, yet I know other people will not recognize it as so, and this thread will blow up into a full-blown troll thread. For what it's worth, tanks should be solo'd because only one person is needed to drive it. If one person by himself can take two or three infantry out of the fight, then that is on OP role. Just throw out four tanks and you've got half the enemy team running AV and unable to properly defend themselves against full-AI enemies, while the tanker team is only short a few people. Saying that using a tank is the best counter is only admitting how ridiculous your role is, this game is meant to have choices, and no one choice is meant to be obviously superior to any other. Each should have its own benefits and downfalls. TL;DR: Because balance. It would be, if you had to spawn into the game with AV and keep it the whole round, BUT since a person can just: die, pick an av suit, pop the tank, swap back, go about their business; it makes being able to solo tanks VERY op. They have no chance in that senario. I dont even pilot tanks and I can see that. So no, no tank solo. Plus to your comment about tank v tank being rediculous, that just shows how rediculous you are. AV should be to support a tank and tip the favor, or if you dont have tanks avail, large numbers to do it yourselves. TL; DR You are obviously a tank hater so stop QQing and comment on stuff you know. GÇ£Pulvis et umbra sumus. (We are but dust and shadow.)GÇ¥ GÇò Horace, The Odes of Horace
R F Gyro Clones 4u 967	Posted - 2014.01.11 14:37:00 - [84] - Quote Takron Nistrom wrote: Logi Bro wrote: sigh This is obvious bait, yet I know other people will not recognize it as so, and this thread will blow up into a full-blown troll thread. For what it's worth, tanks should be solo'd because only one person is needed to drive it. If one person by himself can take two or three infantry out of the fight, then that is on OP role. Just throw out four tanks and you've got half the enemy team running AV and unable to properly defend themselves against full-AI enemies, while the tanker team is only short a few people. Saying that using a tank is the best counter is only admitting how ridiculous your role is, this game is meant to have choices, and no one choice is meant to be obviously superior to any other. Each should have its own benefits and downfalls. TL;DR: Because balance. It would be, if you had to spawn into the game with AV and keep it the whole round, BUT since a person can just: die, pick an av suit, pop the tank, swap back, go about their business; it makes being able to solo tanks VERY op. They have no chance in that senario. I dont even pilot tanks and I can see that. So no, no tank solo. Plus to your comment about tank v tank being rediculous, that just shows how rediculous you are. AV should be to support a tank and tip the favor, or if you dont have tanks avail, large numbers to do it yourselves. TL; DR You are obviously a tank hater so stop QQing and comment on stuff you know. You haven't actually made any argument at all there. Any one player in the game can generally solo kill any other player. Why should it be different with tanks? RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
Ghosts Chance Inf4m0us 767	Posted - 2014.01.11 14:37:00 - [85] - Quote pointless question atiim no matter what you do somebody somewhere is going to solo HAVS, you can make them neigh invincable and it will still happen. currently you can solo vehicles in the past you could solo vehicles and in the future you will always be able to solo vehicles so knowing this information im kinda curious what the point of the thread really is? its not a question of IF as you will always be able to solo them, but rather a question of how easy it should be. some guy standing invisable on a hill 400m from his target nuking a tank with a single swarm clip was definatly not OK i think honestly that railguns nees less ammo per clip and no AV should be able to take out a vehicle in a single clip. so tanks should survive 3x av nades full clip of swarms, full clip of forge, full clip of rail, full clip of missles etc etc. thats with a single hardener running (no hardener stacking....) of hardeners arnt active then a single clip should kill. simple and effective, while hardeners are on a single clip forces the tank to retreat, while hardeners are off a single clip kills. most AV complain about tanks just running away.... but lets be honest here thats actually a good thing, because it diddnt work then infantry could wipe every tank off the face of the map without the tank having a chance to retreat, it was nothing but a metal coffin for all but the best tankers. this way tanks maintain a use, have the same oportunity as infantry in having time to take cover and hide from a threat (givin they arnt idiots just roaming in a field), but still arnt strong enough to sit through a constant barrage of AV only retreating when their hardener runs out.
Takron Nistrom Tinfoil Hatz 171	Posted - 2014.01.11 14:47:00 - [86] - Quote R F Gyro wrote: Takron Nistrom wrote: Logi Bro wrote: sigh This is obvious bait, yet I know other people will not recognize it as so, and this thread will blow up into a full-blown troll thread. For what it's worth, tanks should be solo'd because only one person is needed to drive it. If one person by himself can take two or three infantry out of the fight, then that is on OP role. Just throw out four tanks and you've got half the enemy team running AV and unable to properly defend themselves against full-AI enemies, while the tanker team is only short a few people. Saying that using a tank is the best counter is only admitting how ridiculous your role is, this game is meant to have choices, and no one choice is meant to be obviously superior to any other. Each should have its own benefits and downfalls. TL;DR: Because balance. It would be, if you had to spawn into the game with AV and keep it the whole round, BUT since a person can just: die, pick an av suit, pop the tank, swap back, go about their business; it makes being able to solo tanks VERY op. They have no chance in that senario. I dont even pilot tanks and I can see that. So no, no tank solo. Plus to your comment about tank v tank being rediculous, that just shows how rediculous you are. AV should be to support a tank and tip the favor, or if you dont have tanks avail, large numbers to do it yourselves. TL; DR You are obviously a tank hater so stop QQing and comment on stuff you know. You haven't actually made any argument at all there. Any one player in the game can generally solo kill any other player. Why should it be different with tanks? So by your reasoning, tanks should be as easy to kill as a dropsuit. That is the worst thing I have ever heard and you should feel bad. That sounds like an arguement to just get rid of vehicles. If they are just as easy, why have them. Plus then we need to nerf the heavies according to your statement. GÇ£Pulvis et umbra sumus. (We are but dust and shadow.)GÇ¥ GÇò Horace, The Odes of Horace
THEAMAZING POTHEAD Nyain San Renegade Alliance 767	Posted - 2014.01.11 15:04:00 - [87] - Quote So the 1 decent reply is charolettes, and even in that he clearly states a tank with skill an SP should be close to invincible. Wow, what a joke. This is a video game, if somethings unstoppable, it gets nerfed. End of story. Clearly OP tanks are OP. If you play the game its in your face, tanks are OP, the 8 tanks sponging proto AV like flies aren't OP? What. A. Joke. That's "MR." Pothead to you.
Scheneighnay McBob Bojo's School of the Trades 3510	Posted - 2014.01.11 15:07:00 - [88] - Quote I personally think that HAVs should be cheap to replace and solo-able. But apparently the community wants them to be expensive as hell again but unkillable by AV. We used to have a time machine
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2188	Posted - 2014.01.11 15:09:00 - [89] - Quote I can solo vehicles with a breach FG Intelligence is OP
Snagman 313 Carbon 7 CRONOS. 268	Posted - 2014.01.11 15:38:00 - [90] - Quote Leonid Tybalt wrote: Atiim wrote: Leonid Tybalt wrote: Because it's stupid. A good tank costs a LOT more than a couple of av grenadea carried by one infantryman. They even tend to cost more than a proto heavy suit with a proto forge gun. Also, real world infantry rarely "solo kill" real world tanks. Then why should sci-fi infantry "solo kill" sci-fi tanks? Because it's stupid? So your saying that I should be able to pull 3-6 people out of combat just by driving a tank? isn't that buying a WIN button if I field enough of them then? And how many times are you likely to die in your AV fit? 2-4 times. And at 150-215k a pop, an AVer can easily match the price of a good tank. ~ Lets not go there. This isn't real life, this is a video game. And in real life a solo infantry man can OHK a tank ~ Lets not go there. Look up the Javelin on YouTube and get back to me on that one. ~ Mkay? And while we are bringing up real life facts, 1 = 1. Just saying. Erm, you're not in any position to school me about tanks buddy. I know about the javelin. I also happen to know that the Javelin relies on a thermal signatures to guide the payload, which is fine... When you use it against old, outdated and obsolete WW2-era tanks (the kind most 3rd world countries use, which are the expected enemies for most industrial nations). However, when you look at MODERN tanks (like the more recent version of the Leopard 2), equipped with Saab Barracuda camouflage system, smoke launchers, tungsten/ceramic alloy turret with slatted armor (that covers pretty much the entire top of the tank, usually considered to be a tanks weakest point besides the tank treads, designed SPECIFICALLY to counter anti-tank missiles like the javelins top attack angle function) it's a veeeery different story, because it's rarely even a question if your puny, man portable javelin missile will be able to destroy the tank, but more a question if you'll even be able to get it to lock on target due to the tank having a ****** up heat signature that your little javelin won't be able to recognize. Most serious, modern tanks of today have these kinds or countermeasures making it pretty much impossible for a singular man-portable anti-tank system to destroy them. And then we haven't even begun to cover prototype systems in development that features anti-missile capabilities (they shoot down the missile before it hits). So yeah, I went there... As to your other questions, no I don't think it should take 3-6 people, but 2-3 would be reasonable. And no, it's not a "win button" because tanks still can't enter buildings, climb stairs or hack objectives (you know that little detail required to WIN the match?) And no, your good AV-fit will not match a GOOD tank fit. Do you even know what prototype large turrets cost? Don't believe everything you read on wikipedia bud. Closed Beta AV veteran I drink because I play Dust

GLOBAL RAGE Consolidated Dust 10	Posted - 2014.01.11 15:40:00 - [91] - Quote Atiim wrote: Aizen Intiki wrote: Reported for being a douche trying to troll people. I'm not even trolling. It's been over 6 months and I have yet to actually see a decent answer to the question at hand. 73 EASTING
Soraya Xel The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 1061	Posted - 2014.01.11 18:11:00 - [92] - Quote Takron Nistrom wrote: So by your reasoning, tanks should be as easy to kill as a dropsuit. That is the worst thing I have ever heard and you should feel bad. That sounds like an arguement to just get rid of vehicles. If they are just as easy, why have them. Plus then we need to nerf the heavies according to your statement. Why should there exist a class in the game that serves no practical battlefield role except to make you near invincible? It's bad game design. We're trying to figure out how tanks should have a real role that makes tankers actually face real risk in a game where you're supposed to die. If you aren't losing your suit regularly, you should be either nerfed or removed from the game. I lost about 60 suits last night, how many tanks did you go through? It's the worst thing you ever heard because you believe that, by deciding to be a tanker, you should always be harder to kill than other players, even though that's an incredibly unfair game mechanic. Shouldn't we all be tankers then? I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
Henchmen21 Planet Express LLC 386	Posted - 2014.01.11 18:30:00 - [93] - Quote Leonid Tybalt wrote: Atiim wrote: Aizen Intiki wrote: Reported for being a douche trying to troll people. I'm not even trolling. It's been over 6 months and I have yet to actually see a decent answer to the question at hand. Because it's stupid. A good tank costs a LOT more than a couple of av grenadea carried by one infantryman. They even tend to cost more than a proto heavy suit with a proto forge gun. Also, real world infantry rarely "solo kill" real world tanks. Then why should sci-fi infantry "solo kill" sci-fi tanks? Lai Dai AV nades cost 23,610 isk on their own, nearly as much as a large standard rail turret. That's just one piece of equipment on a suit that's going to die 2-4 times trying to kill a MLT tank. In the real world RPG's and ATGM take out tanks all the time. Henchmen21: Infantry Gotyougood Ufkr: Vehicles
R F Gyro Clones 4u 983	Posted - 2014.01.11 18:37:00 - [94] - Quote Takron Nistrom wrote: R F Gyro wrote: You haven't actually made any argument at all there. Any one player in the game can generally solo kill any other player. Why should it be different with tanks? So by your reasoning, tanks should be as easy to kill as a dropsuit. That is the worst thing I have ever heard and you should feel bad. That sounds like an arguement to just get rid of vehicles. If they are just as easy, why have them. Plus then we need to nerf the heavies according to your statement. Unsound logic my friend. Why would it be an argument for getting rid of vehicles? If I said "logistics suits should be about as easy to kill as assault suits", would that be an argument for getting rid of logistics suits? Your argument about heavies doesn't stack up either: heavies have more HP, but are slower which means you can dictate range on them. They aren't significantly harder to kill than other suit types. To be honest, if "difficult to kill" is your prime concern then I'm happy for solo tanks to have massive EHP. However, in that case they'd need to be slow and have HMG-class weapons only. Pick any one attribute to excel in, the others should be average, and there must be a weakness to balance the excellence. Expecting tanks to excel in every area and for the game to be balanced is just silly. RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
zDemoncake Horizons' Edge 29	Posted - 2014.01.11 18:49:00 - [95] - Quote Skip to 0:40 I looked back on it and I found it humorous. CEO of Horizons' Edge mercenary division Don't let me into my zone.
ugg reset Molon Labe. Public Disorder. 438	Posted - 2014.01.11 19:10:00 - [96] - Quote no one says they shouldn't. i should just take a really long time to do so with militia/STD and a moderately long time with high end gear. Thr33 is the magic number.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 1663	Posted - 2014.01.11 19:21:00 - [97] - Quote Atiim wrote: Title is Self-Explanatory Also: Atiim wrote: Please attempt to keep this constructive, as I don't want another troll thread being made out of this. -HAND. LOL I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 1663	Posted - 2014.01.11 19:22:00 - [98] - Quote SGT NOVA STAR wrote: It was called chromosome, devs didn't like it, so they fixed it. Next. No, infantry didn't like it, so they had CCP change it. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 3336	Posted - 2014.01.11 19:51:00 - [99] - Quote Leonid Tybalt wrote: Aside from having already crushed the old "javelin-argument" with my previous post, what makes you say that this is an infantry game? Got any proof of that? I'd say that the very fact that the game even features drivable vehicles is proof enough that this IS NOT an infantry game. Well, I think the fact that CCP labels DUST 514 as a First Person Shooter is enough proof that this is an infantry game. Also, if this wasn't an infantry game, then CCP wouldn't have a hard cap on the amount of vehicles that can be on the field at once. I'll go more in-depth about your rebuttal to my Javelin argument later, as I just woke up an hour ago and don't feel like doing any actual research right now But I will leave you with this. This is a video-game, and not real life. You cannot mirror game mechanics based on real world mechanics (with a few exceptions of course, such as gravity). Unless of course you want your tank to require an entire crew to pilot. CoD -----> <----- WoT Please AR Scrubs and Tank Spammers, go to your respective games. Leave DUST alone!
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 3336	Posted - 2014.01.11 19:52:00 - [100] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: LOL Are you going to at least attempt to answer the question? CoD -----> <----- WoT Please AR Scrubs and Tank Spammers, go to your respective games. Leave DUST alone!

Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 3336	Posted - 2014.01.11 19:54:00 - [101] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: I can solo vehicles with a breach FG I forgot that everyone has or should have a PRO heavy suit. AV isn't, nor shouldn't be FORGE MASTER RACE. It should be FG=/=SL=/=PLC CoD -----> <----- WoT Please AR Scrubs and Tank Spammers, go to your respective games. Leave DUST alone!
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 3336	Posted - 2014.01.11 19:55:00 - [102] - Quote Glad to see that this thread is still constructive for the most part. Maybe I'll actually accomplish something this time. CoD -----> <----- WoT Please AR Scrubs and Tank Spammers, go to your respective games. Leave DUST alone!
Sirys Lyons Tronhadar Free Guard Minmatar Republic 19	Posted - 2014.01.11 20:08:00 - [103] - Quote Here's a try. It's an ecosystem problem that is cropping up because all the pieces of the puzzle (still) aren't in place. We need infantry with effective AV weapons, and we need internally balanced vehicles. I'll explain. Let's start with vehicles. Right now we have LAVs, which are rather vulnerable - you can be shot out of the vehicle and are (generally) not protected by the vehicles shields/armor if someone is aiming for you. This makes this vehicle a great scout vehicle, a great distraction, and useful for occasional, short period of infantry support. Which is about right. Kudos to CCP. But then we jump immediately from that to the HAVs, which are intended to be far less vulnerable and far more powerful weapons - people should take real notice when there is a tank on the battlefield. Someone has to get through a few thousand EHP to get to you. And they are still fast, because otherwise infantry AV would be a huge problem in relation to intended cost/status of the vehicle. And they have a fast turning turret, because otherwise infantry AV would be a huge problem. And they fire quickly, because otherwise infantry AV would be a huge problem. Etc. In short, the tank is currently filling two roles on the field, and getting all the benefits of both! This is the issue. In fact, we should have the MAVs, which should serve as infantry support. Capable of doing what tanks do now, but with less EHP, making them more of a shock/point-defense weapon. And given their increased firepower (think two small turrets) and their mobility, they should post a threat to tanks in pairs or combination with even one infantry AV. And then we should have the HAVs - the genuine heavy hitters, which move slower, fire slower, and have slower turret rotation than they currently do. Capable of driving in with infantry, popping the MAV that was previously slowing everyone down, and making it possible to take the point. As I put elsewhere: Quote: And I guess my thought is that the "infantry support" role should be where the MAVs shine (in addition to making HAVs think very hard in groups of 2+). Harder to kill than an LAV, but without the Large turret of the HAV. And the Large turret of the HAV should be primarily for LAV/MAV/HAV removal, doing little damage and generally being more difficult to use against infantry. Boom. Vehicles fixed. That would be "highly mobile armor" for scouting / light infantry support - LAV. Then "mobile armor" for infantry support / general purpose AV - MAV. And "heavy armor" for AV / infantry suppression (not total wipe-the-floor destruction) - HAV. Two LAVs would be fast enough to kill an MAV, two MAVs an HAV, and HAVs would be a serious threat to LAVs, or MAVs, while posing a clear defense of an area to infantry (if the smaller turrets are in use...as is not the case on 80+% of the tanks currently). -- So the answer to the question? Idiotic tankers should be able to be killed by infantry AV - even soloed. But tanks shouldn't be the immediate threat to infantry - MAVs should. And those should definitely see ADV/Proto AV as a real threat. Right now, tanks are the vehicular equivalent of a Heavy, put into battle because the Assault class is still being worked on. It comes with all that heavy-class CPU/PG and Shield/Armor, but it turns, fires, jumps, sprints like an Assault. It's OP, and it over-fills both its roles as a "killer" and a "heavy hitter".
GET ATMESON Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance 220	Posted - 2014.01.11 20:20:00 - [104] - Quote For tanks MLT should be popped by solo av. STD tanks should use team work but only if its fitted right. Why not just have "ground swarms" for tanks and "sky swarms" for ADS? Having SW lock on to tanks and ADS it will take a while to balance out. Easier fix would be 2 different types of SW. Open Beta Fed 16th. Scout fix + Heavy suits + Heavy guns = soonGäó
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 3337	Posted - 2014.01.11 21:05:00 - [105] - Quote GET ATMESON wrote: For tanks MLT should be popped by solo av. STD tanks should use team work but only if its fitted right. Why not just have "ground swarms" for tanks and "sky swarms" for ADS? Having SW lock on to tanks and ADS it will take a while to balance out. Easier fix would be 2 different types of SW. So your suggesting another variant that has faster travel times? CoD -----> <----- WoT Please AR Scrubs and Tank Spammers, go to your respective games. Leave DUST alone!
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 3337	Posted - 2014.01.11 21:08:00 - [106] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: SGT NOVA STAR wrote: It was called chromosome, devs didn't like it, so they fixed it. Next. No, infantry didn't like it, so they had CCP change it. Why do you hate infantry so much Spkr4TheDead? CoD -----> <----- WoT Please AR Scrubs and Tank Spammers, go to your respective games. Leave DUST alone!
Sextus Hardcock 0uter.Heaven 194	Posted - 2014.01.11 21:09:00 - [107] - Quote The amount of factors involved in AV vs V makes it an apples vs oranges discussion. Tanks should be slower, with a slower turret rotation, less Ammo, while perhaps buffing defences imo (i.e. maintain or increase the MAVs defences while reducing its agility and offence vs infantry) we do need MAVs to act as heavy infantry support and as something for the tank to kill. MAVs should maintain strong defence against infantry weapons, but must be made less effective at killing infantry in order to balance it out Part of the equation is the maps themselves, since although infantry can operate anywhere, tanks are limited by terrain/buildings.
Cody Sietz Bullet Cluster Legacy Rising 1947	Posted - 2014.01.11 21:10:00 - [108] - Quote Cause the price is so high...oh wait... Cause they are so hard to drive...oh wait... Cause they aren't spamable...oh wait... "I do agree with you there though. shudders" -Arkena Wyrnspire
MINA Longstrike 2Shitz 1Giggle 202	Posted - 2014.01.11 21:58:00 - [109] - Quote Racro 01 Arifistan wrote: Denchlad 7 wrote: Irony of it is is that most people seem to want to go back to 1.6 Tanks and AV. Hmm. all ccp had to do from 1.6 was nerf down that there proto av damge and av nades. everything but proto AV was ifne. but oh no. vehciles got compeltley overhauled and the av nerfed happend ( av nerf is too heavy though give them extra 50 dmage on thes swarms and make it 200m lock range.) 5 minute recharge times on tanks are not 'fine'. Armor repairers being activated items while consistent with eve design is inconsistent with dust design - imagine if infantry had to sit behind cover with a module that has a long cooldown activated to recover armor. Furthermore the madrugar was always the consistently superior tank as it always had better resists and base hp and even without a repper it healed faster at a supply depot and it wouldn't lose 3/4 of its hp if rammed. 1.7 overall brought a lot of good changes because almost anything was better than 1.6 for infantry and vehicles both.
MrShooter01 Storm Wind Strikeforce Caldari State 394	Posted - 2014.01.11 22:00:00 - [110] - Quote So, one issue that seems to stand out is if an average tanker with average skills gets into a standard tank with standard modules, the other team has the choice of either letting it slaughter them, running from it at all times, or having a merc switch to AV. One AV isn't going to cut it unless the AV player has godlike skill and manages to always be in the right place at the right time and has his proto forge/swarm aimed at the weakspot when all the hardeners die. Yeah right. More realistic situation is 2-3 average AV characters engaging this average tanker. Those 2-3 AV players are now toting around piddly little SMGs to defend themselves against the protobears on the other team, who had no need to switch to AV. Tank dude is reducing the effective numbers of the other team just by existing, cause if the other team doesn't have multiple AV out to at least deter the tank they're going to have to live with an enemy impervious to small arms creating large areas of the map where they cant travel without getting melted. What if we made it so tanks needed gunners? I'm not talking about a guy manning the dinky small turrets. I mean the main gun requiring a dedicated gunner, with the driver having zero control over the main turret. Give the driver control of the front mounted small turret if anything. Maybe that could help even up the "teamwork imbalance" a bit. Change tanks from solopwnmobiles into something requiring at least minimal teamwork. Every tank on the field means a minimum of two people forced to work together on both teams, instead of just the AV guys. One less person on the tank's team shooting AV infantry in the face with a rail rifle.

True Adamance Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 5554	Posted - 2014.01.11 22:25:00 - [111] - Quote MrShooter01 wrote: So, one issue that seems to stand out is if an average tanker with average skills gets into a standard tank with standard modules, the other team has the choice of either letting it slaughter them, running from it at all times, or having a merc switch to AV. One AV isn't going to cut it unless the AV player has godlike skill and manages to always be in the right place at the right time and has his proto forge/swarm aimed at the weakspot when all the hardeners die. Yeah right. More realistic situation is 2-3 average AV characters engaging this average tanker. Those 2-3 AV players are now toting around piddly little SMGs to defend themselves against the protobears on the other team, who had no need to switch to AV. Tank dude is reducing the effective numbers of the other team just by existing, cause if the other team doesn't have multiple AV out to at least deter the tank they're going to have to live with an enemy impervious to small arms creating large areas of the map where they cant travel without getting melted. What if we made it so tanks needed gunners? I'm not talking about a guy manning the dinky small turrets. I mean the main gun requiring a dedicated gunner, with the driver having zero control over the main turret. Give the driver control of the front mounted small turret if anything. Maybe that could help even up the "teamwork imbalance" a bit. Change tanks from solopwnmobiles into something requiring at least minimal teamwork. Every tank on the field means a minimum of two people forced to work together on both teams, instead of just the AV guys. One less person on the tank's team shooting AV infantry in the face with a rail rifle. If you can balance a moderate level of effectiveness with AV, coupled with HAV staying power, coupled with a level of relative affordability, and at least requiring a moderate level of SP invested to have a useful and decent tank......then more power to you. That or a redesignation of the role of tanks making them designed to deal with other vehicles on the map at costs to infantry killing power, coupled with making small turrets effective enough to encourage/ make worthwhile for tankers to want an Anti Infantry gunner to cover them. To a Texan like you, a hero is some type of weird sandwich, not some nut who takes on three Gunlogi. Reference = ISK
Sirys Lyons Tronhadar Free Guard Minmatar Republic 26	Posted - 2014.01.11 22:40:00 - [112] - Quote True Adamance wrote: That or a redesignation of the role of tanks making them designed to deal with other vehicles on the map at costs to infantry killing power, coupled with making small turrets effective enough to encourage/ make worthwhile for tankers to want an Anti Infantry gunner to cover them. That's exactly it. Tanks should be primarily AV, but they can't be because there is no MAV. There's just tanks, or buggies.
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 3344	Posted - 2014.01.11 22:44:00 - [113] - Quote Sirys Lyons wrote: True Adamance wrote: That or a redesignation of the role of tanks making them designed to deal with other vehicles on the map at costs to infantry killing power, coupled with making small turrets effective enough to encourage/ make worthwhile for tankers to want an Anti Infantry gunner to cover them. That's exactly it. Tanks should be primarily AV, but they can't be because there is no MAV. There's just tanks, or buggies. If tanks should be the primary answer to other tanks, then why have Infantry AV in the first place? CoD -----> <----- WoT Please AR Scrubs and Tank Spammers, go to your respective games. Leave DUST alone!
Benjamin Ciscko The Generals General Tso's Alliance 1180	Posted - 2014.01.11 22:45:00 - [114] - Quote True Adamance wrote: MrShooter01 wrote: So, one issue that seems to stand out is if an average tanker with average skills gets into a standard tank with standard modules, the other team has the choice of either letting it slaughter them, running from it at all times, or having a merc switch to AV. One AV isn't going to cut it unless the AV player has godlike skill and manages to always be in the right place at the right time and has his proto forge/swarm aimed at the weakspot when all the hardeners die. Yeah right. More realistic situation is 2-3 average AV characters engaging this average tanker. Those 2-3 AV players are now toting around piddly little SMGs to defend themselves against the protobears on the other team, who had no need to switch to AV. Tank dude is reducing the effective numbers of the other team just by existing, cause if the other team doesn't have multiple AV out to at least deter the tank they're going to have to live with an enemy impervious to small arms creating large areas of the map where they cant travel without getting melted. What if we made it so tanks needed gunners? I'm not talking about a guy manning the dinky small turrets. I mean the main gun requiring a dedicated gunner, with the driver having zero control over the main turret. Give the driver control of the front mounted small turret if anything. Maybe that could help even up the "teamwork imbalance" a bit. Change tanks from solopwnmobiles into something requiring at least minimal teamwork. Every tank on the field means a minimum of two people forced to work together on both teams, instead of just the AV guys. One less person on the tank's team shooting AV infantry in the face with a rail rifle. If you can balance a moderate level of effectiveness with AV, coupled with HAV staying power, coupled with a level of relative affordability, and at least requiring a moderate level of SP invested to have a useful and decent tank......then more power to you. That or a redesignation of the role of tanks making them designed to deal with other vehicles on the map at costs to infantry killing power, coupled with making small turrets effective enough to encourage/ make worthwhile for tankers to want an Anti Infantry gunner to cover them. Remember when you would laugh when you saw a militia tank because it was 95% of the time an easy kill now you are actually worried when you see one. Caldari Tanker/Minmatar Assault Forum warrior lvl 1
Benjamin Ciscko The Generals General Tso's Alliance 1180	Posted - 2014.01.11 22:46:00 - [115] - Quote Atiim wrote: Sirys Lyons wrote: True Adamance wrote: That or a redesignation of the role of tanks making them designed to deal with other vehicles on the map at costs to infantry killing power, coupled with making small turrets effective enough to encourage/ make worthwhile for tankers to want an Anti Infantry gunner to cover them. That's exactly it. Tanks should be primarily AV, but they can't be because there is no MAV. There's just tanks, or buggies. If tanks should be the primary answer to other tanks, then why have Infantry AV in the first place? Why have tanks in the first place? You also don't understand what he is saying atiim. He is saying MAV kill infantry HAV kill MAV. Caldari Tanker/Minmatar Assault Forum warrior lvl 1
Sirys Lyons Tronhadar Free Guard Minmatar Republic 26	Posted - 2014.01.11 22:46:00 - [116] - Quote Atiim wrote: Sirys Lyons wrote: True Adamance wrote: That or a redesignation of the role of tanks making them designed to deal with other vehicles on the map at costs to infantry killing power, coupled with making small turrets effective enough to encourage/ make worthwhile for tankers to want an Anti Infantry gunner to cover them. That's exactly it. Tanks should be primarily AV, but they can't be because there is no MAV. There's just tanks, or buggies. If tanks should be the primary answer to other tanks, then why have Infantry AV in the first place? To kill off LAVs, MAVs (what should be the main anti-infantry threats) and assist in the destruction of HAVs (that may be posing a serious threat to friendly LAVs and MAVs). The whole ecosystem that the devs have created makes a very nice rochambeau relationship. The problem is that the ecosystem isn't in the game, and tanks are taking on way too much power as a result.
True Adamance Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 5556	Posted - 2014.01.11 22:54:00 - [117] - Quote Sirys Lyons wrote: True Adamance wrote: That or a redesignation of the role of tanks making them designed to deal with other vehicles on the map at costs to infantry killing power, coupled with making small turrets effective enough to encourage/ make worthwhile for tankers to want an Anti Infantry gunner to cover them. That's exactly it. Tanks should be primarily AV, but they can't be because there is no MAV. There's just tanks, or buggies. I've posted this in multiple threads but my ideal scenario would be to make Tanks the Tech II MAV. MAV being designed to transport troops like the dropship but across the ground and support those troopers with a Medium Turret (in my Mind the current blaster turret is removed from Large Turret designation and nerfed slightly to produce the medium Blaster) being a faster vehicle with less total armour and bonuses to resistance modules. Thus the MAV is designed to be a lightly armoured mobile troop transport and suppression vehicle with an anti infantry bent. HAV turrets are then replaced with more or less main battle cannon weapons with high alpha, moderate splash damage, and small magazine sized to encourage skill shotting and not spamming rounds down range. HAV are redesigned to deal directly and effectively with other vehicles on the map being the pinnacle of vehicle to vehicle combat on the ground at a high but reasonable and meaningful cost to the player in both ISK and SP making Spam of tanks less likely. Lack of massively and ridiculous effective Anti Infantry killing turrets like the Large Blaster means any infantry kills are the result of a well placed shot not just 30 rounds in their general direction. Also I never understood the role of HAV in dust, killing Infantry has been my role for a long time, but Tanks are designed to carry large ordinance and deliver it from behind solid armour and with reasonable mobility.....the rail gun essentially now is the only choice to really achieve that role. LAV < MAV < HAV < Orbital Strike or Other HAV, or AV (but of course the balance between numbers must be first implemented) just like in future I imagine Dropship < Assault Dropship < Fighter < AV, HAV, or OB To a Texan like you, a hero is some type of weird sandwich, not some nut who takes on three Gunlogi. Reference = ISK
Benjamin Ciscko The Generals General Tso's Alliance 1180	Posted - 2014.01.11 23:03:00 - [118] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Sirys Lyons wrote: True Adamance wrote: That or a redesignation of the role of tanks making them designed to deal with other vehicles on the map at costs to infantry killing power, coupled with making small turrets effective enough to encourage/ make worthwhile for tankers to want an Anti Infantry gunner to cover them. That's exactly it. Tanks should be primarily AV, but they can't be because there is no MAV. There's just tanks, or buggies. I've posted this in multiple threads but my ideal scenario would be to make Tanks the Tech II MAV. MAV being designed to transport troops like the dropship but across the ground and support those troopers with a Medium Turret (in my Mind the current blaster turret is removed from Large Turret designation and nerfed slightly to produce the medium Blaster) being a faster vehicle with less total armour and bonuses to resistance modules. Thus the MAV is designed to be a lightly armoured mobile troop transport and suppression vehicle with an anti infantry bent. HAV turrets are then replaced with more or less main battle cannon weapons with high alpha, moderate splash damage, and small magazine sized to encourage skill shotting and not spamming rounds down range. HAV are redesigned to deal directly and effectively with other vehicles on the map being the pinnacle of vehicle to vehicle combat on the ground at a high but reasonable and meaningful cost to the player in both ISK and SP making Spam of tanks less likely. Lack of massively and ridiculous effective Anti Infantry killing turrets like the Large Blaster means any infantry kills are the result of a well placed shot not just 30 rounds in their general direction. Also I never understood the role of HAV in dust, killing Infantry has been my role for a long time, but Tanks are designed to carry large ordinance and deliver it from behind solid armour and with reasonable mobility.....the rail gun essentially now is the only choice to really achieve that role. LAV < MAV < HAV < Orbital Strike or Other HAV, or AV (but of course the balance between numbers must be first implemented) just like in future I imagine Dropship < Assault Dropship < Fighter < AV, HAV, or OB In my mind, and feel free to point out any flaws in my reasoning, it would encourage escalation game play. LAV are used to quickly sweep to the points, MAV roll in carrying bigger guns and more infantry, tanks come in to deal with those MAV, and an OB will deal with that tank, or AV, or another Tank. You just made my mouth water. True Adamance for CPM1 Caldari Tanker/Minmatar Assault Forum warrior lvl 1
True Adamance Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 5557	Posted - 2014.01.11 23:04:00 - [119] - Quote Atiim wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: I can solo vehicles with a breach FG I forgot that everyone has or should have a PRO heavy suit. AV isn't, nor shouldn't be FORGE MASTER RACE. It should be FG=/=SL=/=PLC 1 year into the game most people should....its not a big community.... To a Texan like you, a hero is some type of weird sandwich, not some nut who takes on three Gunlogi. Reference = ISK
Himiko Kuronaga Fatal Absolution Covert Intervention 2728	Posted - 2014.01.11 23:05:00 - [120] - Quote I solo tanks all the time with my forge gun. It requires planning, positioning, and at least one good opening hit to its weak point.

Sirys Lyons Tronhadar Free Guard Minmatar Republic 30	Posted - 2014.01.11 23:07:00 - [121] - Quote True Adamance wrote: I've posted this in multiple threads but my ideal scenario would be to make Tanks the Tech II MAV. This is more or less what I'm advocating, and I support it. Tanks that are AV. A middle tier that is real infantry support, and can really be killed by infantry.
True Adamance Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 5557	Posted - 2014.01.11 23:07:00 - [122] - Quote Himiko Kuronaga wrote: I solo tanks all the time with my forge gun. It requires planning, positioning, and at least one good opening hit to its weak point. Yup one guy with a damage modded DAU is a daunting prospect for any tanker. To a Texan like you, a hero is some type of weird sandwich, not some nut who takes on three Gunlogi. Reference = ISK
jerrmy12 kahoalii The Phoenix Federation 327	Posted - 2014.01.11 23:07:00 - [123] - Quote Himiko Kuronaga wrote: I solo tanks all the time with my forge gun. It requires planning, positioning, and at least one good opening hit to its weak point. a tank with 0 shields 4000 armor, i emptied my AFG into him unhardened, should have killed him I use a tablet so beware of typos
True Adamance Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 5562	Posted - 2014.01.11 23:47:00 - [124] - Quote Benjamin Ciscko wrote: True Adamance wrote: Sirys Lyons wrote: True Adamance wrote: That or a redesignation of the role of tanks making them designed to deal with other vehicles on the map at costs to infantry killing power, coupled with making small turrets effective enough to encourage/ make worthwhile for tankers to want an Anti Infantry gunner to cover them. That's exactly it. Tanks should be primarily AV, but they can't be because there is no MAV. There's just tanks, or buggies. I've posted this in multiple threads but my ideal scenario would be to make Tanks the Tech II MAV. MAV being designed to transport troops like the dropship but across the ground and support those troopers with a Medium Turret (in my Mind the current blaster turret is removed from Large Turret designation and nerfed slightly to produce the medium Blaster) being a faster vehicle with less total armour and bonuses to resistance modules. Thus the MAV is designed to be a lightly armoured mobile troop transport and suppression vehicle with an anti infantry bent. HAV turrets are then replaced with more or less main battle cannon weapons with high alpha, moderate splash damage, and small magazine sized to encourage skill shotting and not spamming rounds down range. HAV are redesigned to deal directly and effectively with other vehicles on the map being the pinnacle of vehicle to vehicle combat on the ground at a high but reasonable and meaningful cost to the player in both ISK and SP making Spam of tanks less likely. Lack of massively and ridiculous effective Anti Infantry killing turrets like the Large Blaster means any infantry kills are the result of a well placed shot not just 30 rounds in their general direction. Also I never understood the role of HAV in dust, killing Infantry has been my role for a long time, but Tanks are designed to carry large ordinance and deliver it from behind solid armour and with reasonable mobility.....the rail gun essentially now is the only choice to really achieve that role. LAV < MAV < HAV < Orbital Strike or Other HAV, or AV (but of course the balance between numbers must be first implemented) just like in future I imagine Dropship < Assault Dropship < Fighter < AV, HAV, or OB In my mind, and feel free to point out any flaws in my reasoning, it would encourage escalation game play. LAV are used to quickly sweep to the points, MAV roll in carrying bigger guns and more infantry, tanks come in to deal with those MAV, and an OB will deal with that tank, or AV, or another Tank. You just made my mouth water. True Adamance for CPM1 Pfff that's the last thing I would want. To a Texan like you, a hero is some type of weird sandwich, not some nut who takes on three Gunlogi. Reference = ISK
Summ Dude OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 101	Posted - 2014.01.11 23:48:00 - [125] - Quote Glad to see the discussion moving along in a pretty constructive direction. Just thought I'd quickly add this video for everyone's viewing enjoyment. I think I've posted it at least twice before on these forums, but damn if it doesn't keep having relevance in these balance discussions. If you're not in the mood to watch it (although you totally should), the basic idea is just that in a competitive multiplayer game, any action/tactic/weapon/skill/ability/whatever used by one player should be engaging and interesting for both the player using it, and the player it's being used on.
ONE-I-BANDIT The Generals General Tso's Alliance 7	Posted - 2014.01.11 23:57:00 - [126] - Quote I-Shayz-I wrote: The balance should be on the players. 3 people in a tank should match 3 AV players. 3 AV players should be better than 1 person in a tank 3 people in a tank should be better than 1 AV player. I think that tanks need to rely more on infantry support than just their tank themselves, whether the infantry is in the tank or not. That's how it used to be...if you had two people in the tank who could jump out and kill AV players easily, then yeah, you should be able to take on more than one AV player. But a solo tank should not be able to take on 5 AV players by himself alone in a militia tank. EDIT: To answer your question... AV should be able to take out a tank solo if the tanker is running solo if they can catch the tanker off guard. I believe AV should have a slight advantage over tanks because that's what it is...AV. But when it comes down to it, a miltia tank should not take on proto AV easily. However a std tank with proto modules should. Well I find some of holes in your theory in a few things here 1. If I could hide behind walls like an troop then I could support ppl to tank ratio. Since most of the maps has places for you to run and hide then attack if you know what you are doing. Tanks are totally exposed. You can climb a ladder to get the advantage. 2. The part about using more troop support, I agree to an bit. When im called to engage an area its mostly to clear an area as much as possible so troops can come right behind me then im gone till needed to scare and make you hide then gone again. Big example was the Enforcer tank which were crap and very expensive and god so slow they were asking to get poped. I did not bring out that tank unless I was sniping other tanks. That should have been the case they should be able to sit there and destroy till the Proto AV arrived and not just one but at least several. 3. Now the last one would be the Militia tank taking out 5 AVers, Is that 5 Proto or Militia AVs? Again do they know how to AV or they standing in the road smiling at me and asking to get killed ? Well as im reading there are lots of ppl even tankers that agree that the milita tank is OP. Why get an Gunlogi if I can get something way cheaper to do the job just as good. Im sure CCP has to see this and for sure hear about this and will nerf it soon
Blaze Ashra Ametat Security Amarr Empire 111	Posted - 2014.01.12 00:04:00 - [127] - Quote I'll give this a shot. TL:DR . No one likes getting ROFL stomped and the only way to keep that from happening is though fair and balanced counters. Wall of text. When I'm fitting out my ADS, I do so with survival in mind. At it's base level it's easily wiped off the map. As it is right now I have to have use attack windows and keep track of where the blues are and do hit and run strikes. During the time I'm not dealing with infantry I'm scouting the perimeter for rail tanks or searching for swarm trails going to allied vehicles. This keeps me relatively busy throughout the match. Now my current fit is complex hardeners, complex after burners, enhanced shield extender and complex power grid upgrade. This gives me enough tank and cool down that I can usually survive 2 hits of a breach FG or 2 shots from rails. So basically you're using one weapon and I'm using 4 modules, 3 of which are meant to survive what you bring to the table. When I have my hardeners on I've got a sizable damage reduction but the collision still knocks me around and can get me killed easily. If hardeners are off, then I can be 1 or 2 shotted easily so I make sure to GTFO. Even with my hardeners going I can be 4 shotted but I have time to react. So basically all you have to do is score 4 hits on me no matter what and I am dead. Swarms get --80% damage reduction when I have my hardeners on top of the 33% damage nerf so they're trivialized at the moment. Though I can be burst down by 2+ proto swarm guys if they fire when my hardeners are off or if they cause me to crash into terrain. Our hardeners make it so we have logi LAV level resistance. I don't think they're the problem because without them we fold like paper, even to the nerfed AV, regardless of how our vehicles are fitted without them. Like I said, I fit to survive and I have 4 slots dedicated to staying in the game versus your one to take me out, and even with all that I can be 4 shotted. So basically most engagements I have a choice on whether to score kills or pull back. In regards to swarms, If I pull back neither of us are in direct danger. My hardeners and after burners are down you have the advantage. If either are not then the advantage goes to me. If my shields are less than 50% and my hardeners are off you will be able to finish me off with 2 volleys regardless of my after burners (Cant out run them from hovering or still). If I get the drop on you, I can take you out and if you track me and time your shots right you can take me out when the opportunity presents itself with 1 or 2 volleys. Thus we have a relatively balanced dynamic at the moment. Now if they increased the regular swarms to 330 and make the assault go back to 400 meters but at current damage levels balance would be achieved for swarms vs vehicles. Close range high risk gives a high pay off, long range low risk gives lower pay offs. This way swarms can be used to tell the tankers GTFO or die or you can use an assault swarm to finish off someone trying to recall after over staying there welcome(modules duration). if they didn't bother to find cover first. Now the reason I think swarms should be less powerful than the plasma cannon is that it is arguably the easiest weapon in the game due to auto acquiring the target, dealing massive damage, having the largest aiming reticule in the game and a very fast firing rate. The plasma cannon lacks all of that but still manages to be a ton of fun. Please note that I'm not saying nerf swarms, I'm saying if any weapon in this game deserves to be balanced against tanks it's the plasma cannon. Also prior to tankers using nitro, swarms owned tanks in nearly every situation.That feeling where the odds are stacked against you, everyone knows where you're at and you can't do anything when you're firing swarms while a blaster tank fires at you, that's exactly how tankers felt prior to 1.7. Only real difference is isk and AV is getting off cheap per death. Tables are turned and the other side doesn't feel very nice, does it.? So basically > 1.7 the balance was tipped to AV so much that the only option for vehicles was to run as fast as they could to survive, and even then it was only mistakes on the AV users part that mattered. Mostly it was overwhelmingly one sided. Now if we make the mistakes we die. For the most part we're not being insta gibbed and can react appropriately and if we don't do so we pay the price. This would be terrible to lose. Now as to why tanks shouldn't be soloed by AV I don't agree with that. I think they should be punished for mistakes they make rather than being vaporized without being able to react. There also is a huge lack of deterrents for tanks. Currently they're in the same race to get kills that AVers were to kill them in prior builds. Aside from bordom(hiding in cover) you can't really say hey, leave us alone or die. That used to be the AV grenades role and proximity mines could fill it perfectly if buffed because of the warning system in place. If they ignore it then the consequences are on them and I won't care for whining about that. What seems to be your problem is you're saying tank but disregarding the modules and playstyle of the driver. There problem is they are thinking they should be the focal point of all balance in the game. If you fire 3 - 6 volleys at an enemy tank as it's being deployed you will destroy it. The second the driver gets in you usually have more of a challenge. You're always assuming that everything is going to be best AV vs best Vehicles and think that the advantage should go to AV because you're more vulnerable to infantry but you're only more vulnerable to infantry because you main swarms. That's the main issue as far as I can see. So as long as nothing is one sided, everything else should be about playstyle and ability. The stuff that's not up to par should be adjusted to fit. It's not about isk, power, skill points or money, It's about fun.
Summ Dude OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 101	Posted - 2014.01.12 03:17:00 - [128] - Quote Blaze Ashra wrote: Wall of text. I...what? How disappointing that such a giant post would be so completely off topic and close with a bunch of random arbitrary junk.
Blaze Ashra Ametat Security Amarr Empire 113	Posted - 2014.01.12 07:25:00 - [129] - Quote Summ Dude wrote: Blaze Ashra wrote: Wall of text. I...what? How disappointing that such a giant post would be so completely off topic and close with a bunch of random arbitrary junk. Wasn't off topic and everything was addressing the current AV/ Vehicle balance, my views on it, and my perspective as a vehicle user. But I didn't really feel like simplifying it so much or leaving everything out.
Auris Lionesse SVER True Blood Public Disorder. 51	Posted - 2014.01.12 07:40:00 - [130] - Quote Until a militia swarm launcher with its base ammo can solo a militia tank av balance can't be achieved because the fundamental system is broken.

Talos Vagheitan Ancient Exiles. 391	Posted - 2014.01.12 07:45:00 - [131] - Quote Price difference. Who cares what some sniper has to say
Ludvig Enraga KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 795	Posted - 2014.01.12 08:09:00 - [132] - Quote Charlotte O'Dell wrote: well, an 80k isk sica should be soloed, yes, but my half million isk tank should be right about where it is bc i invested half my Sp in it. So, to answer your question, a very expensive, very well planned tank piloted by a high SP and highly skilled and seasoned pilot should be nigh invincible. A mlt tank piloted by a noob should get soloed every single time someone tries. The quickest fix would be to nerf mlt tank fitting power AND buff AV so that AV can actually punch through tanks when their hardeners are off. It usually takes 3 shots from a swarm or forge, but a bad tanker is gone by the time the second shot lands, and a good tanker will only let one hit. What do you mean 'nigh invincible'? I run scout suit and have ALL of my SP invested into it and I am skilled since it's the only suit I've been playing for nigh two years. It costs me 100K + at proto level - should not it be nigh invincible too? Oh, sht! I just learned you can make a signature! Thanks, CCP! Forums are getting better!
Qn1f3 Gallente Federation 33	Posted - 2014.01.12 14:01:00 - [133] - Quote Ludvig Enraga wrote: Charlotte O'Dell wrote: well, an 80k isk sica should be soloed, yes, but my half million isk tank should be right about where it is bc i invested half my Sp in it. So, to answer your question, a very expensive, very well planned tank piloted by a high SP and highly skilled and seasoned pilot should be nigh invincible. A mlt tank piloted by a noob should get soloed every single time someone tries. The quickest fix would be to nerf mlt tank fitting power AND buff AV so that AV can actually punch through tanks when their hardeners are off. It usually takes 3 shots from a swarm or forge, but a bad tanker is gone by the time the second shot lands, and a good tanker will only let one hit. What do you mean 'nigh invincible'? I run scout suit and have ALL of my SP invested into it and I am skilled since it's the only suit I've been playing for nigh two years. It costs me 100K + at proto level - should not it be nigh invincible too? Or at least nigh invisible(which you probably are, and will be in a higher extent when cloaking comes into play)! The rest of this message endorses your vision, the joke aside. That way of reasoning clearly does'nt work, even a highly invested SP suit or vehicle should've to apply tactics and wits to survive and advance the team objectives in each individiual battleground. A low SP toon should stand a chance against a higly specialized SP invested toon, even though the chances should be slim. It should handle about skill in the end, but if to equally skilled players end up against eachother the one with higher SP should be the one rendered victorious in most engagements. For AV purposes I have a Skinweave Heavy Suit fitted with a DAU and Complex Damage Mod, it goes for 20k ISK or so and is able to put down most vehicles and or pose a serious threat to them. The nerfed range aside it's a near perfect AV build in my opinion. It's highly effective as long as your team is'nt getting stomped, which occurs in a much higher frequency then wished for(mainly because I solo queue all the time, I believe). I realize Skinweave is not attainable, but still that's just a ~10k ISK more per fitting. Also the main trouble with the HAV domination lies within the matches that are organized by our dear Scotty. As for the corporation matches involve a much higher degree of tactics(I hope, since I've never been to one).
Fizzer94 L.O.T.I.S. D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 1335	Posted - 2014.01.12 14:50:00 - [134] - Quote How it ought to be: 1 AV vs. 1 HAV = difficult but still quite possible for AV if they prepare for the engagement. Should put HAV in redline for a few minutes. 2 AV vs. 1 HAV = takes a small amount of coordination on the AVs part, but fairly easy to do. If the HAV survives, it will be hurt badly. 3 AV vs. 1 HAV = AV will roll over the HAV. Only the most skilled tankers with a retreat strategy will survive this kind of attack, and even then, they won't be back into combat for a few minutes. Yours Truly, Reginald Fizzer94 Delafontaine III, Esquire
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 3380	Posted - 2014.01.12 19:38:00 - [135] - Quote Glad to see all of the constructive posts here. "Keep 'em coming" CoD -----> <----- WoT Please AR Scrubs and Tank Spammers, go to your respective games. Leave DUST alone!
DJINNDicknoseturdwaffle Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 292	Posted - 2014.01.12 20:09:00 - [136] - Quote Atiim wrote: Title is Self-Explanatory Also: Atiim wrote: Please attempt to keep this constructive, as I don't want another troll thread being made out of this. -HAND. Sp/isk difference make it the same and yeah it'd be fine otherwise no, and I don't use tanks.
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 3422	Posted - 2014.01.13 20:50:00 - [137] - Quote Blaze Ashra wrote: 1. You're mainly using 1 slot on your suit to destroy me. 2. I'm using 4 slots of my vehicle to survive you and most tankers use 5. 3. You can destroy every vehicle without a driver in 3-6 shots. 4. If the driver has fit their vehicles badly or makes mistakes they can die easily. 5. Vehicles as they are right now are fine but AV should be buffed to be effective as a threat/deterrent. 6. No one likes getting ROFL stomped and the only way to keep that from happening is though fair and balanced counters. Only one slot? What AV fit are you using? 1 hardner can tank through every form of AV. Your using 2 slots at best (counting repair modules) What vehicle doesn't have a driver? 1=1 is fair. Atiim (Wyrikomi Swarm Launcher) Tank Spammer Tank Spammer (Soma - MLT 80GJ Blaster) Atiim And this is why I drink.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 1514	Posted - 2014.01.13 21:32:00 - [138] - Quote Atiim wrote: Only one slot? What AV fit are you using? they aren't.
deepfried salad gilliam Sanguine Knights 374	Posted - 2014.01.13 21:49:00 - [139] - Quote not opposed to soloing tanks. but it should take time they are very large thus making it a very easy target to hit making a coordinated assault (even if its hey jim lets shoot the maddy) easier if its too easy to solo a tank a simple pair could anhilate tanks making them useless but if their to hard no one tries to kill them so i think it would be best if a tank could hold its own (assuming no other variables) against 2 equally tiered av fits this meaning good av could solo tanks good tanks could take out av a few friends (3 or more) could absolutly demolish a tank or if its a tank getting hit by 2 people maybe die maybe live Proud Christian one of the most essential parts of eve is left out of dust: freedom, exploration, open-world gameplay.
Snagman 313 Carbon 7 CRONOS. 279	Posted - 2014.01.13 22:00:00 - [140] - Quote Blaze Ashra wrote: 1. You're mainly using 1 slot on your suit to destroy me. 2. I'm using 4 slots of my vehicle to survive you and most tankers use 5. 3. You can destroy every vehicle without a driver in 3-6 shots. 4. If the driver has fit their vehicles badly or makes mistakes they can die easily. 5. Vehicles as they are right now are fine but AV should be buffed to be effective as a threat/deterrent. 6. No one likes getting ROFL stomped and the only way to keep that from happening is though fair and balanced counters. 1. You are using 1 slot on your vehicle to destroy me, unless you have turrets in which case you have 3 and I have to give up my primary anti infantry weapon whereas yours is dual purpose. Also I have to mount Dmg mods to be effective vs your large hp and high resist so no extra shields for me thereby reducing my survivability. 2. All low slots will be equipped to increase survivability vs intended HAV between 1 and 4 depending on level of suit. 3. If you are equipped with a Railgun you can kill me in 1 shot and a blaster can do it in 1 to 15 shots depending on suit type, suit damage, infantry support, level of blaster and headshot damage. 4. If the AV player has their suit fitted badly or makes mistakes they can die easily from the HAV or infantry. 5. Std vehicles are fine Mlt vehicles need a tone down or price increase to make them less affordable to spam. AV needs a slight buff but this could also be given by decreasing the effectiveness of certain modules and preventing the stacking of hardeners to the current Iron curtain mode that can be achieved on certain fits. 6. Agreed. Closed Beta AV veteran I drink because I play Dust

Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 3569	Posted - 2014.01.17 04:09:00 - [141] - Quote Anyone else got an answer? Creator of The AV Registry The Pilot's Whipin' Boy // DJINN Lukeoplast's alleged sock *FORGE MASTER RACE*
Goric Rumis Dead Six Initiative Lokun Listamenn 319	Posted - 2014.01.17 05:13:00 - [142] - Quote Let me take a crack at the balancing factors. Because it's not just one person to one person. Sorry in advance for making this so long. I'm not taking the time to make it short. Listing balancing factors off the top of my head (each a function of several individual statistics): targeted killing effectiveness (how efficient you are at killing a single target) group killing effectiveness (how efficient you are at killing a group of targets) suppression strength (how efficient you are at softening/dispersing targets, lowering their effectiveness) defensive strength (how hard it is to kill you--this can be a function of health, speed, suppression, etc.) evasive capability (how easily you can avoid fire and/or escape) ubiquity (your ability to get to places on the map quickly and efficiently) stealth (the ability to avoid conflict, or choose the circumstances of conflict) range (the radius of your optimal area of engagement) circumstantial effectiveness (strengths particular to your class, such as high ground, narrow corridors, cover, etc.) So what we're debating is what I've just labeled "targeted killing effectiveness" or "TKE" in consideration of all other balancing factors. The question is, should AV be strong enough to match vehicles 1:1? Group killing effectiveness is a non-factor for swarms, and requires pretty extreme luck on the part of forge guns. I would call it effectively nil. For tanks, missiles and blasters have some nominal capability to kill groups. Let's call this roughly even. Suppression strength is effectively nil for swarms, and nominal for forge guns (with its long charge time and difficulty hitting moving targets). Tanks with missiles and blasters have very high suppression strength, arguably the highest in the game. Defensive strength is low for swarmers. Higher for forgers, although it is mitigated somewhat by movement--I've always had a much easier time not getting shot in a faster suit. Between health, speed, suppression capability, and the ineffectiveness of most weapons, defensive strength of tanks is unparalleled in the game. Evasive capability is moderately high for swarmers, depending on the suit but there is the ability to duck in and out of cover--however, they are still highly susceptible to infantry. Lowest for forgers, especially while they're charging or holding a charge, particularly with breach--these are always susceptible to infantry. Tanks have moderate evasive capability, in consideration of the distance that often exists between tanks and AV, and also in consideration of its ability to escape combat quickly if necessary; however, they lack the ability to duck in and out of cover easily, so I will rank them moderately low. Ubiquity is a complicated one to debate. Inherent to the role, forge gunners have very, very low ubiquity, however there is an ability to call in a vehicle. I would argue that the inability to operate the vehicle and forge gun at the same time limits the legitimacy of this argument, but even I can admit it would be a technicality. So we can put both forge gunners and swarmers at moderate. For most maps at present, ubiquity for tanks is very high; this could be reduced with better map design. Stealth is relatively high for swarmers, depending on the suit and other modules and skills used. Forge guns are hard to hide, and giving chase always requires either the most direct route (which is rarely stealthy) or a vehicle (which is never stealthy). Tanks get a nominal amount of stealth because they don't show up on radar as easily as they should, but let's face it, it's hard to hide a tank. Range for swarms is moderate for the purposes of this conversation. Forge guns have more range, but come nowhere near rail turrets, so we must also consider them moderate. Because tanks can equip rails quite easily, for the purpose of this conversation we have to give tanks a "very high" for range. Circumstantial effectiveness isn't really a part of this argument. If the maps were more limiting to vehicles and provided more vantage points for AV to reach from within semi-enclosed areas, one could make a more compelling argument for circumstantial effectiveness. Oh, it might be worth mentioning tanks have some limits to their ability to aim, but that rarely seems to be a factor in practical combat. Given this list, I see tanks having an overall advantage in most of the other areas of balance. Therefore, if the ratio is one player to one player, I'm going to have to give them lower TKE relative to AV. This would apply only to killing vehicles. Now for counter-arguments. AV increases effectiveness overall if there are multiple people in a targeted vehicle, for example, destroying a full dropship. This is circumstantial at best, though, so I would rank it nominal. AV agility and target size relative to distance is very lopsided toward the dropsuit. However, this only helps to mitigate the weakness of the dropsuit against other infantry in the same situation. Hypothetically, a fight between an AV player versus one tank and one infantry could go any direction with respect to the tank but will almost inevitably result in the death of the AV player. One AV versus one infantry, all things being equal, is weighted toward the infantry. So in consideration of weighting toward AV, we must hold in consideration that the AV is already a smaller, more agile target than the tank. AV grenades are stupid and irrelevant. Everyone agrees? Good. My recommendation: AV should be more effective than tanks at destroying vehicles, though not necessarily via raw damage alone. Forge guns should be a little more effective than swarms (though less than I was expecting). Tanks should also be balanced by reducing effectiveness in some of these areas, especially rail turret range and ubiquity across the map. Thoughts? The Tank Balancing Factor No One Is Discussing
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 4917	Posted - 2014.02.21 14:16:00 - [143] - Quote Bumping to avoid thread-lock. Atiim (Gunnlogi - 80GJ Particle Cannon) Tank Scrub AFK No seriously. My lunch break's over now. :(
Crimson ShieId Psygod9 D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 80	Posted - 2014.02.21 14:46:00 - [144] - Quote I'm sure it's been said before, but one person CAN solo a tank quite easily. RE's are, after all, the leading cause of tank deaths coupled with scouts. As long as that tank doesn't have infantry support, said tanker is essentially a sitting duck, and the second he starts firing at your team mates, you shove 3 RE's up his tailpipe and tank go boom boom boom. On a side note, I don't think militia tanks should be debuffed, they just need the price raised. A proto suit isn't invincible to a militia suit, even though the person in the proto suit put a lot of SP into that suit. The person in the militia suit just needs to use tactics to kill the proto, it's the same with tanks. My militia tank will get ripped apart by anyone who put points into their tanks in a straight up fight, but if I flank around and come up behind them while their hardeners are on cooldown, I can usually kill them before they know what's up, no matter what kind of tank they're using. It's the same with dropsuits and aside from pricing, there's nothing that really needs to be changed. Militia tanks were a joke before 1.7, not even a threat and something a few AV grenades could tear apart, now they're a relative threat if the pilot is good, just as militia suits can be a threat if the player is good. Sometimes I miss never seeing tanks in a battle... then I remember the mystical flying soma, and I can't help but smile.
Ryme Intrinseca Fatal Absolution 767	Posted - 2014.02.21 15:00:00 - [145] - Quote Charlotte O'Dell wrote: well, an 80k isk sica should be soloed, yes, but my half million isk tank should be right about where it is bc i invested half my Sp in it. If a 150,000isk protosuit is soloable by a 10,000isk militia AR fit, a 500,000isk tank should be soloable by a 30,000isk standard AV fit.
CRYPT3C W0LF Vherokior Combat Logistics Minmatar Republic 386	Posted - 2014.02.21 15:01:00 - [146] - Quote If you're smart with AV, you can Solo Tankers (RE, Flux, Swarm) And for the love of god, all the people bring up the argument "An 80k soma killed my Proto Suit thats costs 240k" well, before 1.7, It was the opposite. 1 Proto Swarm could SOLO a 3 Million Isk tank quite easily, how fair is that? Now the deal with double hardeners, redline railing, and speed of each tanks needs to be looked at or fixed. Honestly I believe tanks are in a solid place if those above issues are fixed, I think It would create a balanced playing field if used/countered wisely. Should AV be able to Solo tanks? If you're smart and play tactically, then of course. Its not that the AV itself is to blame, its how people utilize it COOKIE MASTER RACE ^__^ Youtube, A Merc with a passion
Crimson ShieId Psygod9 D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 80	Posted - 2014.02.21 15:09:00 - [147] - Quote CRYPT3C W0LF wrote: If you're smart with AV, you can Solo Tankers (RE, Flux, Swarm) And for the love of god, all the people bring up the argument "An 80k soma killed my Proto Suit thats costs 240k" well, before 1.7, It was the opposite. 1 Proto Swarm could SOLO a 3 Million Isk tank quite easily, how fair is that? Now the deal with double hardeners, redline railing, and speed of each tanks needs to be looked at or fixed. Honestly I believe tanks are in a solid place if those above issues are fixed, I think It would create a balanced playing field if used/countered wisely. Should AV be able to Solo tanks? If you're smart and play tactically, then of course. Its not that the AV itself is to blame, its how people utilize it Hey, I remember you... Those Jihad LAV's were fun. Also, could you tone down the pwning of my blueberries? You're scaring the poor little guys! Also, agreed. Triple hardened Gunlogis can keep their hardeners on indefinitely I believe, though the current state of them is still probably a step down from what it used to be in terms of armor hardeners. Sometimes I miss never seeing tanks in a battle... then I remember the mystical flying soma, and I can't help but smile.
CRYPT3C W0LF Vherokior Combat Logistics Minmatar Republic 386	Posted - 2014.02.21 15:14:00 - [148] - Quote Crimson ShieId wrote: CRYPT3C W0LF wrote: If you're smart with AV, you can Solo Tankers (RE, Flux, Swarm) And for the love of god, all the people bring up the argument "An 80k soma killed my Proto Suit thats costs 240k" well, before 1.7, It was the opposite. 1 Proto Swarm could SOLO a 3 Million Isk tank quite easily, how fair is that? Now the deal with double hardeners, redline railing, and speed of each tanks needs to be looked at or fixed. Honestly I believe tanks are in a solid place if those above issues are fixed, I think It would create a balanced playing field if used/countered wisely. Should AV be able to Solo tanks? If you're smart and play tactically, then of course. Its not that the AV itself is to blame, its how people utilize it Hey, I remember you... Those Jihad LAV's were fun. Also, could you tone down the pwning of my blueberries? You're scaring the poor little guys! Also, agreed. Triple hardened Gunlogis can keep their hardeners on indefinitely I believe, though the current state of them is still probably a step down from what it used to be in terms of armor hardeners. hehe, I <3 Mercing people in my scout suit and Jihad jeeping I think you may have meant armor tanking maddys, gunnlogi's don't have 3 lows COOKIE MASTER RACE ^__^ Youtube, A Merc with a passion
Pisidon Gmen Ivory Vanguard 18	Posted - 2014.02.21 15:58:00 - [149] - Quote Charlotte O'Dell wrote: well, an 80k isk sica should be soloed, yes, but my half million isk tank should be right about where it is bc i invested half my Sp in it. So, to answer your question, a very expensive, very well planned tank piloted by a high SP and highly skilled and seasoned pilot should be nigh invincible. A mlt tank piloted by a noob should get soloed every single time someone tries. The quickest fix would be to nerf mlt tank fitting power AND buff AV so that AV can actually punch through tanks when their hardeners are off. It usually takes 3 shots from a swarm or forge, but a bad tanker is gone by the time the second shot lands, and a good tanker will only let one hit. the question is WHY a tank can't be soloed not why your tank cant b killed there is a crap load of cheep tanks ruling the field do to bs mods and the speed boost combined with the nurff to av weapons and if you get shot by a proto swarm u should take damage too not sit and grin about it and keep shooting when you consider the supply of ammo in any av weapon it seems stupid the damage they do now with out a tank kicking in a harder or shield / armor repair it takes most of the available ammo to account for the amount of hp on the tank . no add in hardeners ect and it makes tanks unkillable do to hp heal or simply running away. Current av weapons don't take more then 1 or 2 shots to kill a tank now lets talk about range what the hell was the nurrf to swarms range for 175m is bs a blaster tank can shoot a lot farther then that and rail tanks shoot across the map. we need the same range as a forge gun esp when u try to kill drop ships they can just fly too high to kill and that's bs
Crimson Cerberes Hammer Of Light Covenant of the Phoenix Alliance 293	Posted - 2014.02.21 16:00:00 - [150] - Quote Charlotte O'Dell wrote: well, an 80k isk sica should be soloed, yes, but my half million isk tank should be right about where it is bc i invested half my Sp in it. So, to answer your question, a very expensive, very well planned tank piloted by a high SP and highly skilled and seasoned pilot should be nigh invincible. A mlt tank piloted by a noob should get soloed every single time someone tries. The quickest fix would be to nerf mlt tank fitting power AND buff AV so that AV can actually punch through tanks when their hardeners are off. It usually takes 3 shots from a swarm or forge, but a bad tanker is gone by the time the second shot lands, and a good tanker will only let one hit. Translation: "I should be nigh invincible." Your words, not mine. Also sums up your opinion on the matter, and your idea of "balance" as well. Mobius Wyvern wrote: Charlotte O'Dell wrote: well, an 80k isk sica should be soloed, yes, but my half million isk tank should be right about where it is bc i invested half my Sp in it. So, to answer your question, a very expensive, very well planned tank piloted by a high SP and highly skilled and seasoned pilot should be nigh invincible. A mlt tank piloted by a noob should get soloed every single time someone tries. The quickest fix would be to nerf mlt tank fitting power AND buff AV so that AV can actually punch through tanks when their hardeners are off. It usually takes 3 shots from a swarm or forge, but a bad tanker is gone by the time the second shot lands, and a good tanker will only let one hit. See, that's the issue. Militia tanks can give a good fight to someone who actually invested time and skill into their asset and worked to get to where they are now. THAT is the problem with 1.7. Make Militia tanks inferior to STD ones like they used to be. The cost is fine, but they shouldn't be able to ** up someone who actually worked for their asset and put a lot of ISK into it. No, standard tanks are just as far above militia tanks as standard suits/gear is above militia suits/gear. This is balanced. DUST Fiend wrote:** You have to be careful with AV buffs or dropships will go right back to where they were. We're actually really close to a state of balance right now, of course there are issues left that need to be addressed, but overall, it's coming along nicely for a change. The QQ is about tanks. I don't think anyone thinks that dropships are OP right now. Of course swarms should do a bit more, but I think everyone agrees.

Dauth Jenkins Ultramarine Corp 67	Posted - 2014.02.21 16:02:00 - [151] - Quote Atiim wrote: Aizen Intiki wrote: Reported for being a douche trying to troll people. I'm not even trolling. It's been over 6 months and I have yet to actually see a decent answer to the question at hand. Tanks should be able to be solo by AV that is above their lvl. MLT tanks should be solved by proto A/V, it should take 2 AV to destroy it, or 1 very persistent AV. That way, MLT tanks get a nerf, but the others don't. Sees prototompers... Sees blueberries start to snipe... Pulls out commando suit with laser rifle and swarm launcher...
ReGnYuM Escrow Removal and Acquisition 2224	Posted - 2014.02.21 16:06:00 - [152] - Quote Just Because.... Official Imperfect Title: Supreme Leader of the Endless Sunset I Slay, for thy Empress Do you even PC... Brah
Crimson Cerberes Hammer Of Light Covenant of the Phoenix Alliance 293	Posted - 2014.02.21 16:08:00 - [153] - Quote Dauth Jenkins wrote: Atiim wrote: Aizen Intiki wrote: Reported for being a douche trying to troll people. I'm not even trolling. It's been over 6 months and I have yet to actually see a decent answer to the question at hand. Tanks should be able to be solo by AV that is above their lvl. MLT tanks should be solved by proto A/V, it should take 2 AV to destroy it, or 1 very persistent AV. That way, MLT tanks get a nerf, but the others don't. Your just another "I should be invincible" guy. Militia AV should counter militia tanks. AV > Vehicles > infantry > AV. Why is that so hard for tankers to understand? Also, militia tanks aren't the problem, TANKS are the problem. Standard tanks are still much better than militia (25% more slots, high fittings). No one argues that militia suits are OP compared to standard suits, but there is just about the same difference there. OH, and one lvl higher than militia is standard, not proto.
Crimson Cerberes Hammer Of Light Covenant of the Phoenix Alliance 293	Posted - 2014.02.21 16:13:00 - [154] - Quote CRYPT3C W0LF wrote: If you're smart with AV, you can Solo Tankers (RE, Flux, Swarm) And for the love of god, all the people bring up the argument "An 80k soma killed my Proto Suit thats costs 240k" well, before 1.7, It was the opposite. 1 Proto Swarm could SOLO a 3 Million Isk tank quite easily, how fair is that? Now the deal with double hardeners, redline railing, and speed of each tanks needs to be looked at or fixed. Honestly I believe tanks are in a solid place if those above issues are fixed, I think It would create a balanced playing field if used/countered wisely. Should AV be able to Solo tanks? If you're smart and play tactically, then of course. Its not that the AV itself is to blame, its how people utilize it Are you really complaining that your dedicated counter, AV, killed tanks before? You of all people, infantry-camping-tanker, should understand that AV should kill you just as easily as you can kill infantry. Full stop. The only legitimate complain is that vehicles were too expensive before.
CLONE117 planetary retaliation organisation ACME Holding Conglomerate 687	Posted - 2014.02.21 16:17:00 - [155] - Quote i dont feel tanks shouldnt be soloable. they should be all means.. but they should be a little challenge to take down when soloing. which is how it is currently. the problem ive seen so far on why ppl r failing to kill tanks even when a squad of av is firing at them is for the simple fact they are firing from a bad position. most mlt vehicle i see and use. are geared towards passive tanking. easier to take out as well. while the oh so common std tank is mainly using cycled hardeners and other such things. which makes them alot harder to take out even with a group of av. so far theyve been counterable via mlt glass cannon rails or missiles. but currently in some of the matches. which theyve all basically become one sided now. due to corps like FA and others. its becoming more difficult to counter std tanks over all even with glass cannons. as im starting to get pinned down within the redzone. mainly due to being out numbered. im thinking a way to solve something like this is to possibly give swarms more ammo. buffing their current base clips by 1 and increasing base ammo capacity some more as well. and changing some of how the active modules work. lets say for hardeners give them a side effect by slowing them down. so they wont actually by able to run like hell to the redzone. av would have a chance to pummel them more heavily and kill them. turning active tanks into short term siege machines. that can only take a heavy beating for a short duration of time. and to futher add to this. we can get rid of hardener cycle in this way. lets say a player has 2 armor hardeners. he activates one hardener and the other hardener activates at the same time.
Evicer THE HECATONCHIRES 229	Posted - 2014.02.21 16:19:00 - [156] - Quote Atiim wrote: Title is Self-Explanatory Also: Atiim wrote: Please attempt to keep this constructive, as I don't want another troll thread being made out of this. -HAND. you didnt get the memo?Its supposed to take 3 guys,but wait a new video with a guy shooting Militia swarms at a tank and proficiency 3 cant take down a militia tank that has no hardners on is not op .Meaning Yes that newberry with no skills in swarm launchers will do nothing to that tank. So he wont even try..... Video https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=143189&find=unread Fortune favors the Bold,but Success favors the Resolute Unbent,Unburdened, UNSTOPPABLE Amarr loyalist
The Attorney General 2181	Posted - 2014.02.21 16:24:00 - [157] - Quote Crimson Cerberes wrote: Are you really complaining that your dedicated counter, AV, killed tanks before? You of all people, infantry-camping-tanker, should understand that AV should kill you just as easily as you can kill infantry. Full stop. The only legitimate complain is that vehicles were too expensive before. The only legitimate complaint? Not seeing the AV troops beyond 75m was not a legitimate complaint? 3 AV nades erasing 90% of the health of a tank in 2 seconds was not a legitimate complaint? Swarms that could dispose of a tank from far outside of its optimal with a single magazine was not a legitimate complaint? You ever wonder why some tankers are so adamant with defending their vehicles? It is because there are people like this guy and Atiim and others who refuse to admit that there were things that needed balancing. Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 4921	Posted - 2014.02.21 16:26:00 - [158] - Quote CRYPT3C W0LF wrote: If you're smart with AV, you can Solo Tankers (RE, Flux, Swarm) And for the love of god, all the people bring up the argument "An 80k soma killed my Proto Suit thats costs 240k" well, before 1.7, It was the opposite. 1 Proto Swarm could SOLO a 3 Million Isk tank quite easily, how fair is that? Now the deal with double hardeners, redline railing, and speed of each tanks needs to be looked at or fixed. Honestly I believe tanks are in a solid place if those above issues are fixed, I think It would create a balanced playing field if used/countered wisely. Should AV be able to Solo tanks? If you're smart and play tactically, then of course. Its not that the AV itself is to blame, its how people utilize it As for your first point, even now when my 235k suit is killed by an 80k Soma, I still don't care. ISK balance is the worst balance. REs, Fluxes, and Swarms have never worked on me (well, Jihad Jeeps got me once or twice); and they surely won't work on any tanker who knows what they are doing. Atiim (Gunnlogi - 80GJ Particle Cannon) Tank Scrub AFK No seriously. My lunch break's over now. :(
Baal Omniscient L.O.T.I.S. D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 1103	Posted - 2014.02.21 16:27:00 - [159] - Quote Step 1: Increase the price of all infantry gear to scale with current tank gear costs (leave militia gear alone for new players) Step 2: Add in the ADV and PRO tanks but make the current MLT the STD one, make the current STD one the AVD one, make a new weaker one for MLT and make a stronger one for PRO Step 3: Buff all AV Step 4: Profit (well... a lot less profit for protobears, but you wont hear me complaining) MAG ~ Raven
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 4923	Posted - 2014.02.21 16:29:00 - [160] - Quote The Attorney General wrote: The only legitimate complaint? Not seeing the AV troops beyond 75m was not a legitimate complaint? 3 AV nades erasing 90% of the health of a tank in 2 seconds was not a legitimate complaint? Swarms that could dispose of a tank from far outside of its optimal with a single magazine was not a legitimate complaint? You ever wonder why some tankers are so adamant with defending their vehicles? It is because there are people like this guy and Atiim and others who refuse to admit that there were things that needed balancing. inb4 facts. I actually said myself that 400m was too far, and that tanks should get a buff. (Pre 1.7) Keep at it with those baseless rumors though. It seems to be all your good for. ((And why were you getting so close to infantry anyways? That's the only way AV grenades could effect you) Atiim (Gunnlogi - 80GJ Particle Cannon) Tank Scrub AFK No seriously. My lunch break's over now. :(

Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 4923	Posted - 2014.02.21 16:31:00 - [161] - Quote Baal Omniscient wrote: Step 1: Increase the price of all infantry gear to scale with current tank gear costs (leave militia gear alone for new players) Step 2: Add in the ADV and PRO tanks but make the current MLT the STD one, make the current STD one the AVD one, make a new weaker one for MLT and make a stronger one for PRO Step 3: Buff all AV Step 4: Profit (well... a lot less profit for protobears, but you wont hear me complaining) Step 5: Jack match payouts through the roof or only people who play PC would afford to run even ADV gear. Atiim (Gunnlogi - 80GJ Particle Cannon) Tank Scrub AFK No seriously. My lunch break's over now. :(
Takron Nistrom Tinfoil Hatz 218	Posted - 2014.02.21 16:32:00 - [162] - Quote I agree. If they are price comprable to a drop suit and only operated by one merc, then yes, one av should be able to kill standard tanks. Make advanced tanks pilot by 2 mercs and needs to be killed by 2 av and proto tanks operated by 3 or more mercs and killed by 3 or more av. I find that to be a fair trade. U wanna run cheap tanks, yer gonna be killed faster. GÇ£Pulvis et umbra sumus. (We are but dust and shadow.)GÇ¥ GÇò Horace, The Odes of Horace
OliX PRZESMIEWCA Bezimienni... 19	Posted - 2014.02.21 16:34:00 - [163] - Quote Leonid Tybalt wrote: Atiim wrote: Aizen Intiki wrote: Reported for being a douche trying to troll people. I'm not even trolling. It's been over 6 months and I have yet to actually see a decent answer to the question at hand. Because it's stupid. A good tank costs a LOT more than a couple of av grenadea carried by one infantryman. They even tend to cost more than a proto heavy suit with a proto forge gun. Also, real world infantry rarely "solo kill" real world tanks. Then why should sci-fi infantry "solo kill" sci-fi tanks? Saving Private Ryan, Rambo and all movies based on Alistair MacLean's novels. I forgot to mention Indiana Jones. Real life infantry... Between 70' & 80' TOW-2 missile was developed. Two people or even one in extreme situation could fire wired rocket with max 5km range. And he could manoeuvre it. Few years later Javelin rocket was able to destroy every tank. By one soldier only. More realism You said? Why my AR got such a bad range when AK-47 got theoretical range far more than 1000m? Ok stop sarcasm. If tanker (not militia one) let me sneak behind him, let me throw nades and then let me use 4-5 adv-proto av he should be dead. Sorry not should be... He deserves to be dead. If You Tankers don't want av weapons to be rebuffed a little at least let the tank get -xx% to speed if hardners are on.
Skihids Bullet Cluster Legacy Rising 2880	Posted - 2014.02.21 16:35:00 - [164] - Quote A more clear way to phrase the question is: "To what extent should SP or ISK buy you an advantage over your opponent?" Avoiding the hot button particulars of tanks, AV, particular guns, proficiency levels, etc., the question comes down to how much imbalance you want to allow in your game. Stripped of these, most folks would admit that ISK shouldn't buy you more than a 25% advantage over your opponent. They don't want WoW levels of invincibility for SP either, as this is a FPS/MMO rather than a straight up MMO. So why have tanks, or any other vehicle for that matter if they can't be invincible? For variety! That's right, they can be different without being OP. They can fulfill different roles rather than trying to be "Super Colossal" drop suits. That's where CCP was going with the "waves of opportunity" thing, leaving aside the implementation failures atm. The idea was to make them more powerful for a period of time while making them more vulnerable at others such that the sum total was still equal to a standard infantry player. So as was stated upthread we could introduce lighter armor that would be infantry killers and let tanks hunt those and be mediocre against infantry by themselves. That adds variety to the game. Or we could have multi-crew vehicles where the sum total of the crew determines the power of the vehicle. In a way that's still an advantage for the vehicle as it generates automatic teamwork for them while leaving open the possibility the opposition can't get it together to coordinate. That could be a big problem in public matches so these vehicles might be limited to FW or PC matches. TL/DR: Vehicles should add variety to play styles, not alter the overall power balance by allowing you to use ISK or SP to gain an overwhelming advantage.
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 9496	Posted - 2014.02.21 16:40:00 - [165] - Quote Personally I think the price of a vehicle should proportional the collective price off AV fits that can take them down (I do think some vehicle prices are very wrong though). Not sure what the exact proportion should be though, but I think that could justify requiring more than 1 AV players to take down 1 tank, IF that tank costs considerably more than the AV fit. The price proportion should be the favor of AV though, because of the extra coordination required for teamwork. Other situations like using REs are exempt from this in my opinion because of how easy it is to stop (jihad jeeps are easily destroyed if you see them coming), and the risky close range required to execute it successfully. On the subject of militia tanks being able to kill standard tanks, I'm not a pilot, but Inclined to think its a good thing that the tier of your stuff doesn't guarantee victory, though they might be too close in power, but I'm not really qualified to comment on the current power balance between militia and standard tank. I also believe no matter how much SP you spent, and no matter how much your tank cost, it should NEVER be invincible, or be able to ruin the battle for everyone without any challenge. I feel the same way about infantry fits (which is why I support tiercide) Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+
Crimson Cerberes Hammer Of Light Covenant of the Phoenix Alliance 293	Posted - 2014.02.21 16:40:00 - [166] - Quote The Attorney General wrote: Crimson Cerberes wrote: Are you really complaining that your dedicated counter, AV, killed tanks before? You of all people, infantry-camping-tanker, should understand that AV should kill you just as easily as you can kill infantry. Full stop. The only legitimate complain is that vehicles were too expensive before. The only legitimate complaint? Not seeing the AV troops beyond 75m was not a legitimate complaint? 3 AV nades erasing 90% of the health of a tank in 2 seconds was not a legitimate complaint? Swarms that could dispose of a tank from far outside of its optimal with a single magazine was not a legitimate complaint? You ever wonder why some tankers are so adamant with defending their vehicles? It is because there are people like this guy and Atiim and others who refuse to admit that there were things that needed balancing. AV was invulnerable beyond 75m to Tanks like tanks are invulnerable at any distance from infantry. You have a problem with one but not the other. That is called hypocrisy Granted, AV grenades probably did too much damage before, but now with the new hardners they do nearly no damage. The pendulum swung too far. Swarms killing tanks from outside a tanks optimal? How about blaster tanks killing infantry, while totally invulnerable to infantry, and faster, and stronger, from 150+ meters? Or 600meters for railgns? Things were slightly imbalanced before. Tanks were too expensive, rendering for vehicles sucked, swarms had too much range, and gunnlogis should have repaired as fast as the glitched armor reppers on the madrugers did. Now? Yeah it is completely the opposite. Tanks >>>>>>>>>>>>>> all. Every single tanker who complained about balance before, but are quiet now, are complete hypocrites.
The Attorney General 2182	Posted - 2014.02.21 16:44:00 - [167] - Quote Atiim wrote: inb4 facts. I actually said myself that 400m was too far, and that tanks should get a buff. (Pre 1.7) Keep at it with those baseless rumors though. It seems to be all your good for. ((And why were you getting so close to infantry anyways? That's the only way AV grenades could effect you) Was I quoting you? Then learn to respond to those that respond to you. Clearly the muppet I was quoting thought that everything was fine aside from tank prices. What baseless rumours? Are you drunk? As for getting so close to infantry, you didn't have a choice, because with a LLAV they had an indestructible method of reaching the tank. Maybe if you had ever been good at AV you would have known how to take them out up close instead of camping towers with your invisible swarms. Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
Nothing Certain Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 265	Posted - 2014.02.21 16:45:00 - [168] - Quote Leonid Tybalt wrote: Atiim wrote: Aizen Intiki wrote: Reported for being a douche trying to troll people. I'm not even trolling. It's been over 6 months and I have yet to actually see a decent answer to the question at hand. Because it's stupid. A good tank costs a LOT more than a couple of av grenadea carried by one infantryman. They even tend to cost more than a proto heavy suit with a proto forge gun. Also, real world infantry rarely "solo kill" real world tanks. Then why should sci-fi infantry "solo kill" sci-fi tanks? This line of reasoning is that we should be able to buy our way to victory. So if you have a 500k tank and think it should be close to invincible, should a 2 million tank destroy yours easily and be virtually invincible against yours, how about a 5 million one? 10 million? Do you really think it should boil down to ISK? The real world has no application in our video game, if it did, none of us would play it. Because, that's why.
The Attorney General 2183	Posted - 2014.02.21 16:50:00 - [169] - Quote Crimson Cerberes wrote: AV was invulnerable beyond 75m to Tanks like tanks are invulnerable at any distance from infantry. You have a problem with one but not the other. That is called hypocrisy Granted, AV grenades probably did too much damage before, but now with the new hardners they do nearly no damage. The pendulum swung too far. You can't fight what you can't see. If you can't see how that was unbalanced, than no amount of logic will persuade you. If you want to delude yourself, go right ahead. As for AV nades, I use them to great effect on my heavy alt. Sorry that you can no longer solo vehicles with them, but to claim they are ineffective is BS. Crimson Cerberes wrote: Swarms killing tanks from outside a tanks optimal? How about blaster tanks killing infantry, while totally invulnerable to infantry, and faster, and stronger, from 150+ meters? Or 600meters for railgns? Things were slightly imbalanced before. Tanks were too expensive, rendering for vehicles sucked, swarms had too much range, and gunnlogis should have repaired as fast as the glitched armor reppers on the madrugers did. Now? Yeah it is completely the opposite. Tanks >>>>>>>>>>>>>> all. Every single tanker who complained about balance before, but are quiet now, are complete hypocrites. slightly imbalanced means you are only slightly ********. Yet another infantry scrub who needs to have his posts hidden. Also, please pretend like there are not tankers out making threads or posts suggesting nerfs to tanks and buffs to AV, because they do exist. You just choose to not notice them because they fly in the face of your view. Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
xSir Campsalotx G0DS AM0NG MEN D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 117	Posted - 2014.02.21 17:23:00 - [170] - Quote Tanks can be solo'd blew up 12 tanks yesterday pro forge, practically the only one who bothered to bring any AV out. A number of way to do this if they are stationary use flux/AV grenade based on tank type then hit with ishikune assualt forge. Sneak up behind using lav if hardeners are going wait till they run out, hit with av and forge, dead tank. If they are mobile it's a bit trickier, bring up map observe tank and let him establish his pattern (human are creatures of habit ) if its a more open map with a high point, dropship up high with a forge (kaalakiota but if your a crack shot use ishikune assualt, breach if shield tank without extenders) take notice of where there are long exposed paths. Hit tank on his rout, if hardeners are put on let him think he got away and stop firing only starting again when hardeners are down. If he doesn't put any hardeners continue to unload. If its a city map again take note of his pattern, throw all AV grenades around the corner before he gets there (lead with grenades) and charge your breach, as soon as he take grenade damage unleash forge if it all possible hit him in the soft spot. You can also do this with an assualt forge but you must consider a charge time when choosing. (You can wait with a breach but can get more shots off with assualt) also be sure to position yourself so you can see an entire stretch of road when he tries to run.

Crimson Cerberes Hammer Of Light Covenant of the Phoenix Alliance 293	Posted - 2014.02.21 17:26:00 - [171] - Quote The Attorney General wrote: Crimson Cerberes wrote: AV was invulnerable beyond 75m to Tanks like tanks are invulnerable at any distance from infantry. You have a problem with one but not the other. That is called hypocrisy Granted, AV grenades probably did too much damage before, but now with the new hardners they do nearly no damage. The pendulum swung too far. You can't fight what you can't see. If you can't see how that was unbalanced, than no amount of logic will persuade you. If you want to delude yourself, go right ahead. As for AV nades, I use them to great effect on my heavy alt. Sorry that you can no longer solo vehicles with them, but to claim they are ineffective is BS. I guess we just pick our own arguements now? The argument above was that AV was INVULNERABLE TO TANKS. now TANKS ARE INVULNERABLE TO INFANTRY. yet one is fine and the other is not. Learn 2 read. ALSO proof or STFU on the grenades liar. The Attorney General wrote: Crimson Cerberes wrote: Swarms killing tanks from outside a tanks optimal? How about blaster tanks killing infantry, while totally invulnerable to infantry, and faster, and stronger, from 150+ meters? Or 600meters for railgns? Things were slightly imbalanced before. Tanks were too expensive, rendering for vehicles sucked, swarms had too much range, and gunnlogis should have repaired as fast as the glitched armor reppers on the madrugers did. Now? Yeah it is completely the opposite. Tanks >>>>>>>>>>>>>> all. Every single tanker who complained about balance before, but are quiet now, are complete hypocrites. slightly imbalanced means you are only slightly ********. Yet another infantry scrub who needs to have his posts hidden. Also, please pretend like there are not tankers out making threads or posts suggesting nerfs to tanks and buffs to AV, because they do exist. You just choose to not notice them because they fly in the face of your view. Ok so we got two things out of this arguement. #1 you agree that tanks >>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything else atm. Good, glad to see another person admit that tanks are ridiculously op right now. #2 You are not one of the tankers making post about nerfing tanks or boosting AV.
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 4933	Posted - 2014.02.21 17:30:00 - [172] - Quote It seems that some are misinterpreting this. I'm not asking wether or not HAVs can be soloed, but wether or not they should be soloed. Atiim (Gunnlogi - 80GJ Particle Cannon) Tank Scrub AFK No seriously. My lunch break's over now. :(
Skihids Bullet Cluster Legacy Rising 2882	Posted - 2014.02.21 17:32:00 - [173] - Quote People need to stop focusing on their little niche and think about the game as a whole. Forget "It's a tank!" or "It's a freaking Javelin!", and think about balance and variety. CCP is ultimately in charge, but people need to come to some agreement about how much ISK or SP should influence game balance, and do it outside the context of any particular role. There is a spectrum of opinions, ranging from the hardcore tiericide that ISK and SP should buy only variety and not a single percentage of advantage, to folks who advocate WoW levels of advantage for either. The first is espoused by those who want player skill to be the determining factor in every situation and the latter by folks more comfortable with MMOs than traditional FPS. If you think ISK should buy a 100-300% advantage, then that holds true for every role, not just the one you happened to choose. So if an expensive tank should be worth three standard infantry AV, then infantry should be able to purchase gun just as expensive such that they would be able to fight 2-3 normal tanks at once. You choose the level of imbalance people can buy, and then anyone can buy it. It's just like when your mother makes you or your bother cut the cake and allows the other to choose the piece. It leads to a much more balanced division.
Tallen Ellecon KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 1475	Posted - 2014.02.21 17:41:00 - [174] - Quote "I invested half my SP in a tank therefore it should be invincible" is the most ridiculous argument tankers ever have. What about all my SP invested in my suit? Where is my Gallente sidearm? 1.8? When is that? SoonGäó514 "No blue tags make Tallen go crazy."
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 1553	Posted - 2014.02.21 21:11:00 - [175] - Quote Tallen Ellecon wrote: "I invested half my SP in a tank therefore it should be invincible" is the most ridiculous argument tankers ever have. What about all my SP invested in my suit? Suits are clearly lesser and thus deserve no consideration whatsoever by out tank overlords. When I get another PS3 I am going to dedicate 10 mil to annihilating every tank I see on the field... Oh wait, that's what I always do. Carry on.
Leonid Tybalt Dark Knightz Corp. 253	Posted - 2014.02.21 21:26:00 - [176] - Quote Atiim wrote: Charlotte O'Dell wrote: Atiim wrote: Title is Self-Explanatory Stop lumping all tankers into the same category. It makes you look stupid. How am I lumping all tankers into a general category? When I said "Self Explanatory", I meant that the title of the thread is the actual question at hand, which does make it "Self Explanatory." Please, show me where I am "lumping all tankers into the same category". In pretty much every thread you've written in on the subject since 1.7 came out... Luckily, most of us know you're just a butthurt loser, and we pay you no heed.
CRYPT3C W0LF Vherokior Combat Logistics Minmatar Republic 386	Posted - 2014.02.21 21:30:00 - [177] - Quote Crimson Cerberes wrote: CRYPT3C W0LF wrote: If you're smart with AV, you can Solo Tankers (RE, Flux, Swarm) And for the love of god, all the people bring up the argument "An 80k soma killed my Proto Suit thats costs 240k" well, before 1.7, It was the opposite. 1 Proto Swarm could SOLO a 3 Million Isk tank quite easily, how fair is that? Now the deal with double hardeners, redline railing, and speed of each tanks needs to be looked at or fixed. Honestly I believe tanks are in a solid place if those above issues are fixed, I think It would create a balanced playing field if used/countered wisely. Should AV be able to Solo tanks? If you're smart and play tactically, then of course. Its not that the AV itself is to blame, its how people utilize it Are you really complaining that your dedicated counter, AV, killed tanks before? You of all people, infantry-camping-tanker, should understand that AV should kill you just as easily as you can kill infantry. Full stop. The only legitimate complain is that vehicles were too expensive before. Lol, You automatically assume I use tanks, which I dont, unless to take out another tank Get you're facts straight before you start making accusations COOKIE MASTER RACE ^__^ Youtube, A Merc with a passion
Disturbingly Bored The Strontium Asylum 1680	Posted - 2014.02.21 21:31:00 - [178] - Quote I-Shayz-I wrote: 3 people in a tank should match 3 AV players. Not to potentially veer into trolling, but when was the last time you saw a tank fit with light turrets? I used to own the FAT GAT until this --> [ASCII Art removed - *draconian forum overlord* CCP Logibro]
Roy Ventus Foxhound Corporation General Tso's Alliance 1125	Posted - 2014.02.21 21:35:00 - [179] - Quote Standards should be easily able to become junk metal against AV in a 1 on 1. Advanced should put up more of a fight but still be able to get soloed. Prototypes should be difficult to solo with AV. Officer Tanks should be based off of Nokia designs in terms of indestructibility and cost at least 2 mil on the player market. Of course if they bring us some damn AV Specialists suits, we could keep the difficulty for the general AVers the same as it is now and make it way easier for the specialists. "There once was a time when there wasn't a Roy Ventus and it wasn't much of a time at all." Roy Ventus
Baal Omniscient L.O.T.I.S. D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 1105	Posted - 2014.02.21 21:52:00 - [180] - Quote Skihids wrote: People need to stop focusing on their little niche and think about the game as a whole. Forget "It's a tank!" or "It's a freaking Javelin!", and think about balance and variety. CCP is ultimately in charge, but people need to come to some agreement about how much ISK or SP should influence game balance, and do it outside the context of any particular role. There is a spectrum of opinions, ranging from the hardcore tiericide that ISK and SP should buy only variety and not a single percentage of advantage, to folks who advocate WoW levels of advantage for either. The first is espoused by those who want player skill to be the determining factor in every situation and the latter by folks more comfortable with MMOs than traditional FPS. If you think ISK should buy a 100-300% advantage, then that holds true for every role, not just the one you happened to choose. So if an expensive tank should be worth three standard infantry AV, then infantry should be able to purchase gun just as expensive such that they would be able to fight 2-3 normal tanks at once. You choose the level of imbalance people can buy, and then anyone can buy it. It's just like when your mother makes you or your bother cut the cake and allows the other to choose the piece. It leads to a much more balanced division. You... kinda hurt my poor sleep deprived brain with the way you wrote that, kinda confusing, but I think I made out what you meant. It is good... ....but it would be way easier to make AV really strong and ungodly expensive, thus the "but my **** costs more than his" argument is gone. Tanks can kill you easy, but if you risk the ISK you can kill them relatively easy as well. All it would take is to do a simple AV buff and price increase. (Note: DS's would need a HP bump in this case of course, they honestly need one now to deal with railtanks anyways.) MAG ~ Raven

Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 4520	Posted - 2014.02.22 10:04:00 - [181] - Quote Disturbingly Bored wrote: I-Shayz-I wrote: 3 people in a tank should match 3 AV players. Not to potentially veer into trolling, but when was the last time you saw a tank fit with light turrets? I don't know about Shayz, but the last time I saw this was the last time I played on my tank alt. That was a few days ago now, because I've been busy with Armored Core, Dragon's Dogma and Strider lately.
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2021	Posted - 2014.02.22 11:01:00 - [182] - Quote The most recurring arguement hear is basically . . . . I put Money and SP into this, I should be nigh on invincible. So just a simple question, what about someone who has a full SP Tree for nova knives, who is paying 50,000 per weapon at Proto (over 10 times more expensive than my entire fit), why can't he carve through tens of people per fit? If you are basing your argument on the fact that you SP down a certain route why can't anyone make that arguement? Instead of saying, I invested in this it should be OP by design try thinking If my tank should be weaker, I should get cheaper costs. Mlt : 75,000 Total Std: 125,000 Total Adv: 175,000 Total Pro: 250,000 Total Combat Engineer in training. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
Piraten Hovnoret Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 346	Posted - 2014.02.22 11:06:00 - [183] - Quote Charlotte O'Dell wrote: well, an 80k isk sica should be soloed, yes, but my half million isk tank should be right about where it is bc i invested half my Sp in it. So, to answer your question, a very expensive, very well planned tank piloted by a high SP and highly skilled and seasoned pilot should be nigh invincible. A mlt tank piloted by a noob should get soloed every single time someone tries. The quickest fix would be to nerf mlt tank fitting power AND buff AV so that AV can actually punch through tanks when their hardeners are off. It usually takes 3 shots from a swarm or forge, but a bad tanker is gone by the time the second shot lands, and a good tanker will only let one hit. What about if we do the same for infantry. My proto 200+k should not go down to any militia or standard gear Or are you just a trololololol War never changes
Leonid Tybalt Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 254	Posted - 2014.02.24 12:42:00 - [184] - Quote Piraten Hovnoret wrote: Charlotte O'Dell wrote: well, an 80k isk sica should be soloed, yes, but my half million isk tank should be right about where it is bc i invested half my Sp in it. So, to answer your question, a very expensive, very well planned tank piloted by a high SP and highly skilled and seasoned pilot should be nigh invincible. A mlt tank piloted by a noob should get soloed every single time someone tries. The quickest fix would be to nerf mlt tank fitting power AND buff AV so that AV can actually punch through tanks when their hardeners are off. It usually takes 3 shots from a swarm or forge, but a bad tanker is gone by the time the second shot lands, and a good tanker will only let one hit. What about if we do the same for infantry. My proto 200+k should not go down to any militia or standard gear Or are you just a trololololol I seriously doubt your 200k+ proto suit goes down to a militia or std suit in a straight up fight as often as 500k tanks takes a beating from cheap 80k Sicas. Mainly because even ur you run a cheap militia tank it's extremely easy to fit it to get roughly the same damage output as a more expensive tank. It's not as easy to do with dropsuits and infantry weaponry.
Justicar Karnellia Ikomari-Onu Enforcement Caldari State 691	Posted - 2014.02.24 12:57:00 - [185] - Quote I think the argument is kind of redundant now - of course they should be able to solo tanks. They are only supposed to be effective against tanks (which is not currently the case). Also, people seem to forget, you have a limited 16 v 16 engagement, having an asset that requires multiple people to take down makes that asset overpowered as it gives you a "soft" numerical advantage. I think we just have to wait what CCP have in mind to swing the pendulum back the other way.
NAV HIV The Generals General Tso's Alliance 1092	Posted - 2014.02.24 13:40:00 - [186] - Quote Charlotte O'Dell wrote: well, an 80k isk sica should be soloed, yes, but my half million isk tank should be right about where it is bc i invested half my Sp in it. So, to answer your question, a very expensive, very well planned tank piloted by a high SP and highly skilled and seasoned pilot should be nigh invincible. A mlt tank piloted by a noob should get soloed every single time someone tries. The quickest fix would be to nerf mlt tank fitting power AND buff AV so that AV can actually punch through tanks when their hardeners are off. It usually takes 3 shots from a swarm or forge, but a bad tanker is gone by the time the second shot lands, and a good tanker will only let one hit. Wow you are actually making sense ?!
Goric Rumis Dead Six Initiative Lokun Listamenn 384	Posted - 2014.03.28 20:25:00 - [187] - Quote Skihids wrote: People need to stop focusing on their little niche and think about the game as a whole. Forget "It's a tank!" or "It's a freaking Javelin!", and think about balance and variety. CCP is ultimately in charge, but people need to come to some agreement about how much ISK or SP should influence game balance, and do it outside the context of any particular role. There is a spectrum of opinions, ranging from the hardcore tiericide that ISK and SP should buy only variety and not a single percentage of advantage, to folks who advocate WoW levels of advantage for either. The first is espoused by those who want player skill to be the determining factor in every situation and the latter by folks more comfortable with MMOs than traditional FPS. If you think ISK should buy a 100-300% advantage, then that holds true for every role, not just the one you happened to choose. So if an expensive tank should be worth three standard infantry AV, then infantry should be able to purchase gun just as expensive such that they would be able to fight 2-3 normal tanks at once. You choose the level of imbalance people can buy, and then anyone can buy it. It's just like when your mother makes you or your bother cut the cake and allows the other to choose the piece. It leads to a much more balanced division. Hear, hear. I'm beginning to feel like almost everyone on this forum is here just to shout and not to solve problems, so appeals to reason generally go without any kind of response. Appreciate the thought you've put into this. This isn't as simple as 100k ISK > 30k ISK, though. Infantry AV could be more expensive than tanks even though a single fit of AV is less expensive than a single fit of a tank as a result of what we will call "mean time in combat" or MTIC. An AV fit's MTIC is lower due to its increased vulnerability, while a tank can frequently run an entire battle or at least be destroyed only a couple of times. Therefore in order to match the cost of AV, a tank's straight ISK cost per fit must be higher than an AV infantry's straight ISK cost per fit. How much higher? I don't know whether CCP even collects the kind of data you'd need to make a specific determination. You'd have to know the time between drop and destruction for each type of vehicle, and the time between spawn and destruction for each type of infantry weapon, and even then end-of-combat could skew results if it doesn't register as destruction. But I would venture a guess that vehicles should be at least 50% more expensive than the infantry AV counterpart, and possibly as much as 300%, provided all other factors are in balance (see my previous post in this thread). From there, you can calculate your premium. The Tank Balancing Factor No One Is Discussing
Bro-metheus Storm Wind Strikeforce Caldari State 79	Posted - 2014.03.28 21:15:00 - [188] - Quote Charlotte O'Dell wrote: well, an 80k isk sica should be soloed, yes, but my half million isk tank should be right about where it is bc i invested half my Sp in it. So, to answer your question, a very expensive, very well planned tank piloted by a high SP and highly skilled and seasoned pilot should be nigh invincible. A mlt tank piloted by a noob should get soloed every single time someone tries. The quickest fix would be to nerf mlt tank fitting power AND buff AV so that AV can actually punch through tanks when their hardeners are off. It usually takes 3 shots from a swarm or forge, but a bad tanker is gone by the time the second shot lands, and a good tanker will only let one hit. wrong, any fool could see that balancing that kind of EHP spread on any game asset would be impossible. They should cut the costs of you tank down and 1 proto AV forge gun should be able to bring it down if all the rounds in the forgegun magazine land. 2 proto swarm launchers if they hit you with all the rounds in their magazine before they have to reload should also bring down the proto tank. That should always be the max required. You cannot have tanks have this insane amount of EHP spread and find a way to balance them, because the counters do no have that same level of DMG spread. The EHP spread for tanks should be the same % increase as it is for Dropsuits and the AV levels should have a spread to reflect that. You have to close the spread on tanks EHP. just think with the current tank spread once we get the other racials in order to show any real difference between them you would have to make them insane to see a effective difference. All tanks EHP has to be brought closer to the center. Reduce tank prices to reflect it. Everyone should have a equal chance to die to their counters. Tanks and Dropsuits included. Bring the tank prices down close the EHP spread. Let players spawn in veh from their redline quickly as well as allowing a call in anywhere. also allow recall only from redline and supply depots.
Black SlaverX Seykal Expeditionary Group Minmatar Republic 86	Posted - 2014.03.28 21:21:00 - [189] - Quote Aizen Intiki wrote: Reported for being a douche trying to troll people. Reported for: Harassment Name calling Adding nothing to original post Watch your back because I might be there.
Meeko Fent Kirkinen Risk Control Caldari State 1998	Posted - 2014.03.28 21:24:00 - [190] - Quote Due to the lack of difference between High level, and no-level tanks, having a random AV guy be able to pop your tank solo, which could have cost quite a few matches would be a bad idea. Nerf Militia Tanks, Nerf the permahard tanks (limit hardners to one per vehicle), and lolpassive reppers, and then the issue of TANKKKKKKSSSSS! will be resolved. Because you wanted to be something you're not.

Gaurdian Satyr Glitched Connection 40	Posted - 2014.03.28 21:30:00 - [191] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: You have to be careful with AV buffs or dropships will go right back to where they were. We're actually really close to a state of balance right now, of course there are issues left that need to be addressed, but overall, it's coming along nicely for a change. Heres the thing the basic SW won't cut killing a tank which people want But it shouldn't They should invest it AV material I run advance and I solo fine No proto in public matches!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThWFhoB8kS8&feature=youtu.be
Luna Angelo We Who Walk Alone 940	Posted - 2014.03.28 21:32:00 - [192] - Quote If I may? I don't think one AV should be able to kill a tank, but it should make it think twice. As it is, you have scrubs with no talent not dying. And the ones WITH talent are racking it up. Just my two Isk. I'll expand on this later, back to cloaking it up. I don't need luck, I have a cloak. Wolves don't lose sleep over the opinions of sheep. CEO of We Who Walk Alone
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 6239	Posted - 2014.03.28 21:37:00 - [193] - Quote Gaurdian Satyr wrote: Heres the thing the basic HAVs wouldn't cut survivng AV which people wanted But it shouldn't They should've invest it HAV material I ran HAVs and I lived just fine Please refrain from using anecdotal evidence. As you can see from my revised version, it does not provide any facts to aid your argument. This thread is not about whether or not they can, it's about whether they should. Also, lolCBR7 SLs. My Madrugar's armor repairers could easily out-DPS you. The Snack That Smiles Back! "Swarmers" [s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Goric Rumis Dead Six Initiative Lokun Listamenn 389	Posted - 2014.03.28 21:44:00 - [194] - Quote Luna Angelo wrote: If I may? I don't think one AV should be able to kill a tank, but it should make it think twice. As it is, you have scrubs with no talent not dying. And the ones WITH talent are racking it up. Just my two Isk. I'll expand on this later, back to cloaking it up. I can appreciate where that's coming from, but here's my problem with it: An AV can't make a tank think twice without being able to kill it. You need to have the imminent threat of destruction in order to motivate any kind of behavior in the tanker. Otherwise you're just trying to annoy them into leaving. The Tank Balancing Factor No One Is Discussing


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [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.