DUST Search - Ok CCP, ur aware of the Tank issue. How are u resolving it?

All Channels

General Discussions

Ok CCP, ur aware of the Tank issue. How are u resolving it?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Prius Vecht Red and Silver Hand Amarr Empire 182	Posted - 2014.01.15 15:23:00 - [1] - Quote Only the most tanker homer guys and lovers of 'I win' buttons can defend the current state of tank dominance. CCP u guys are apparently looking at the metrics and are aware of the problems. What vehicle issues are you looking to resolve in 1.8? the vehicle issues as I see them are: a) Tanks dont cost nearly enough compared to their raw power. A tank should be 3x the cost of a proto suit if its going to be anywhere near as powerful as they are now. b) They are too fast. Faster than infantry is no problem but right now they're sportscar fast. c) You can't cripple them. Vehicles with less than half of its total health should be moving at 1/4 of normal speed. d) The enter/exit animation is a glitch. lets do away with teleporting in and out of vehicles and add actual animations that people cant take advantage of in a gunfight or to abandon a tank about to explode. Especially mr pop-out-in-an-instant Heavy in his LAV. e) The modules repair way too fast. going from crippled to full health in a split second? No Way. The increase should be gradual. f) Too many AV weapons are crap. The plasma cannon has a silly firing arc and doesn't do nearly enough damage for a weapon that reloads after every shot. Prox mines dont do enough damage (they should start @ 2000 per) and every vehicle has a mine detector. Shouldnt that be a module? REs should stick to tanks. g) You can recall them in an instant. No vehicle should be recalled if its damaged and they should have to wait on the RDV just like when theyre dropped off. No teleporting. Recalling cant be an exploit to get your tank out of harm's way when things go badly. h) AV was tuned badly. Swarms were taken down too much and AV grenades were too. Forges are the direct counter to vehicles and the hits should be devastating to them. Reduce grenade spam by making people equip grenades and then throw them with R1.
Asha Starwind VEXALATION CORPORATION Partners of Industrial Service and Salvage 147	Posted - 2014.01.15 15:29:00 - [2] - Quote Also, why aren't there hard vehicle limits? e.g. 2 tanks 2 dropships 2 lavs per team? To not alienate a player who has only specc'd into vehicles is just BS.
Tolen Rosas Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 289	Posted - 2014.01.15 15:32:00 - [3] - Quote Totally agree with G. If you risk your vehicle by trying to get it out of a hotzone thats on you. they disappear waaaay to fast.
ResistanceGTA Valor Tactical Operations Immortal Coalition of New-Eden 93	Posted - 2014.01.15 15:37:00 - [4] - Quote Prius Vecht wrote: Only the most tanker homer guys and lovers of 'I win' buttons can defend the current state of tank dominance. CCP u guys are apparently looking at the metrics and are aware of the problems. What vehicle issues are you looking to resolve in 1.8? the vehicle issues as I see them are: a) Tanks dont cost nearly enough compared to their raw power. A tank should be 3x the cost of a proto suit if its going to be anywhere near as powerful as they are now. From a realistic standpoint, I must agree with you here, vehicles should cost more because they should require more raw materials to produce than a dropsuit. b) They are too fast. Faster than infantry is no problem but right now they're sportscar fast. c) You can't cripple them. Vehicles with less than half of its total health should be moving at 1/4 of normal speed. A crippling feature would be a nice, but I would say half speed, not a quarter. d) The enter/exit animation is a glitch. lets do away with teleporting in and out of vehicles and add actual animations that people cant take advantage of in a gunfight or to abandon a tank about to explode. Especially mr pop-out-in-an-instant Heavy in his LAV. Probably too much for CCP to handle. e) The modules repair way too fast. going from crippled to full health in a split second? No Way. The increase should be gradual. f) Too many AV weapons are crap. The plasma cannon has a silly firing arc and doesn't do nearly enough damage for a weapon that reloads after every shot. Prox mines dont do enough damage (they should start @ 2000 per) and every vehicle has a mine detector. Shouldnt that be a module? REs should stick to tanks. g) You can recall them in an instant. No vehicle should be recalled if its damaged and they should have to wait on the RDV just like when theyre dropped off. No teleporting. Recalling cant be an exploit to get your tank out of harm's way when things go badly. I know this is way to much for CCP to handle. Have you had an RDV yoyo a vehicle, or take over a minute to drop off a vehicle? I have, I can only imagine what horrible/hilarious things would happen if RDVs had to pick up vehicles. h) AV was tuned badly. Swarms were taken down too much and AV grenades were too. Forges are the direct counter to vehicles and the hits should be devastating to them. Reduce grenade spam by making people equip grenades and then throw them with R1.
Flix Keptick Red Star. EoN. 3303	Posted - 2014.01.15 16:08:00 - [5] - Quote Give me a marauder tank with a siege module and you won't see me flee from a battle (mainly because I couldn't move) Lack of content makes stuff broken... Tank driver // specialized tank destroyer
Justicar Karnellia Ikomari-Onu Enforcement Caldari State 568	Posted - 2014.01.15 16:09:00 - [6] - Quote If I recall correctly, they already acknowledged there is a problem and will fix it - the "when" will be the interesting part. some of the solutions are so basic they could be hotfixed really - and they do have a history of hotfixing out of patch cycles... the TAC AR comes to mind...
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 1520	Posted - 2014.01.15 16:10:00 - [7] - Quote Prius Vecht wrote: Only the most tanker homer guys and lovers of 'I win' buttons can defend the current state of tank dominance. CCP u guys are apparently looking at the metrics and are aware of the problems. What vehicle issues are you looking to resolve in 1.8? the vehicle issues as I see them are: a) Tanks dont cost nearly enough compared to their raw power. A tank should be 3x the cost of a proto suit if its going to be anywhere near as powerful as they are now. Probably true, I like that I can lose one and not go negative for the next 6 matches. I'd up the price but not to the insane levels it was at before. b) They are too fast. Faster than infantry is no problem but right now they're sportscar fast. Going to disagree on this one, I think they're sufficiently fast considering some of the dowsides. For example Caldari HAVs are significantly slower than Armor, and Armor HAVs have a **** ass turning radius. c) You can't cripple them. Vehicles with less than half of its total health should be moving at 1/4 of normal speed. I'd be ok with something like this, but a 75% reduction to speed is excessive. I think it would be much better to give infantry the means to forcefully slow a tank down, but not have it tied to total damage. d) The enter/exit animation is a glitch. lets do away with teleporting in and out of vehicles and add actual animations that people cant take advantage of in a gunfight or to abandon a tank about to explode. Especially mr pop-out-in-an-instant Heavy in his LAV. Who gives a if you kill the pilot or not? I always go down with my tank unless I know I can hop out and finish off an enemy tank on foot. Destroying the tank is sufficient though, you've removed the immediate threat. e) The modules repair way too fast. going from crippled to full health in a split second? No Way. The increase should be gradual. You must be referring to Shield Boosters. Remember that shield boosters can only be used once in a while due to large cooldowns, and that the slow regeneration of an armor repairer is actually better in terms of total HP regenerated in the long run. f) Too many AV weapons are crap. The plasma cannon has a silly firing arc and doesn't do nearly enough damage for a weapon that reloads after every shot. Prox mines dont do enough damage (they should start @ 2000 per) and every vehicle has a mine detector. Shouldnt that be a module? REs should stick to tanks. Plasma Cannon needs a lot of work. Swarm Damage is fine but give it some more range. Forges are still highly effective with proper positioning. Remotes do stick to tanks as well as any other vehicle. AVers need to be less focused on asking for more damage, and more focused on asking for more tools to assist in vehicle destruction. Webifiers would be a good start. g) You can recall them in an instant. No vehicle should be recalled if its damaged and they should have to wait on the RDV just like when theyre dropped off. No teleporting. Recalling cant be an exploit to get your tank out of harm's way when things go badly. You can't recall a vehicle that is critically damage (on fire). Also in many cases I will fit a shield HAV with armor plates as part of a buffer, but with no way to repair it. Should I be penalized if I want to switch turrets, solely because my fit chooses to use armor that can't be repaired normally? The No-Recall if a vehicle has any damage is just not a good idea. I'm find with critical damage, but ANY damage? No. As for an RDV coming to actually pick the vehicle up? That's reasonable. h) AV was tuned badly. Swarms were taken down too much and AV grenades were too. Forges are the direct counter to vehicles and the hits should be devastating to them. Reduce grenade spam by making people equip grenades and then throw them with R1. AV Grenades were out of control before, you could easily solo a tank using them. Swarm damage is much more reasonable now, but the range nerf should be reduced. Forge guns are devastating, especially Assault Forges. Use elevation! I ** my pants when I feel an assault forge hitting me from up high. 1.8 Analysis - Sentinel Damage Efficiency Calcs
I-Shayz-I I-----I 1936	Posted - 2014.01.15 16:12:00 - [8] - Quote They already said that militia tanks are getting fixed. That's the biggest problem. Links: List of Most Important Threads I make logistics videos!
Prius Vecht Red and Silver Hand Amarr Empire 185	Posted - 2014.01.15 16:19:00 - [9] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Prius Vecht wrote: Only the most tanker homer guys and lovers of 'I win' buttons can defend the current state of tank dominance. CCP u guys are apparently looking at the metrics and are aware of the problems. What vehicle issues are you looking to resolve in 1.8? the vehicle issues as I see them are: a) Tanks dont cost nearly enough compared to their raw power. A tank should be 3x the cost of a proto suit if its going to be anywhere near as powerful as they are now. Probably true, I like that I can lose one and not go negative for the next 6 matches. I'd up the price but not to the insane levels it was at before. b) They are too fast. Faster than infantry is no problem but right now they're sportscar fast. Going to disagree on this one, I think they're sufficiently fast considering some of the dowsides. For example Caldari HAVs are significantly slower than Armor, and Armor HAVs have a **** ass turning radius. c) You can't cripple them. Vehicles with less than half of its total health should be moving at 1/4 of normal speed. I'd be ok with something like this, but a 75% reduction to speed is excessive. I think it would be much better to give infantry the means to forcefully slow a tank down, but not have it tied to total damage. d) The enter/exit animation is a glitch. lets do away with teleporting in and out of vehicles and add actual animations that people cant take advantage of in a gunfight or to abandon a tank about to explode. Especially mr pop-out-in-an-instant Heavy in his LAV. Who gives a if you kill the pilot or not? I always go down with my tank unless I know I can hop out and finish off an enemy tank on foot. Destroying the tank is sufficient though, you've removed the immediate threat. e) The modules repair way too fast. going from crippled to full health in a split second? No Way. The increase should be gradual. You must be referring to Shield Boosters. Remember that shield boosters can only be used once in a while due to large cooldowns, and that the slow regeneration of an armor repairer is actually better in terms of total HP regenerated in the long run. f) Too many AV weapons are crap. The plasma cannon has a silly firing arc and doesn't do nearly enough damage for a weapon that reloads after every shot. Prox mines dont do enough damage (they should start @ 2000 per) and every vehicle has a mine detector. Shouldnt that be a module? REs should stick to tanks. Plasma Cannon needs a lot of work. Swarm Damage is fine but give it some more range. Forges are still highly effective with proper positioning. Remotes do stick to tanks as well as any other vehicle. AVers need to be less focused on asking for more damage, and more focused on asking for more tools to assist in vehicle destruction. Webifiers would be a good start. g) You can recall them in an instant. No vehicle should be recalled if its damaged and they should have to wait on the RDV just like when theyre dropped off. No teleporting. Recalling cant be an exploit to get your tank out of harm's way when things go badly. You can't recall a vehicle that is critically damage (on fire). Also in many cases I will fit a shield HAV with armor plates as part of a buffer, but with no way to repair it. Should I be penalized if I want to switch turrets, solely because my fit chooses to use armor that can't be repaired normally? The No-Recall if a vehicle has any damage is just not a good idea. I'm find with critical damage, but ANY damage? No. As for an RDV coming to actually pick the vehicle up? That's reasonable. h) AV was tuned badly. Swarms were taken down too much and AV grenades were too. Forges are the direct counter to vehicles and the hits should be devastating to them. Reduce grenade spam by making people equip grenades and then throw them with R1. AV Grenades were out of control before, you could easily solo a tank using them. Swarm damage is much more reasonable now, but the range nerf should be reduced. Forge guns are devastating, especially Assault Forges. Use elevation! I ** my pants when I feel an assault forge hitting me from up high. How much did tanks cost before? forgive me i'm not a tanker. OAN: the issues with instant exit/entering should be obvious. Easily one of the most abused mechanics in the game.
Serimos Haeraven The Exemplars Top Men. 593	Posted - 2014.01.15 16:20:00 - [10] - Quote Prius Vecht wrote: You can recall them in an instant. No vehicle should be recalled if its damaged and they should have to wait on the RDV just like when theyre dropped off. No teleporting. Recalling cant be an exploit to get your tank out of harm's way when things go badly. I like this idea a lot when it comes to vehicle recalls. If it's damaged at all, you have no option of recalling it. Instead, you have to go to a supply depot to heal it and then recall it, so it's 100% sure that you're not trying to recall it because you're almost dead in a fight.

Amarrgheddon Warcaste 90	Posted - 2014.01.15 16:28:00 - [11] - Quote I-Shayz-I wrote: They already said that militia tanks are getting fixed. That's the biggest problem. the first week this was a problem. You can skill into basic tanks in a week. I believe you just read the forums and parrot what other people say. Your the problem
Reav Hannari Red Rock Outriders 2585	Posted - 2014.01.15 16:30:00 - [12] - Quote Amarrgheddon wrote: I-Shayz-I wrote: They already said that militia tanks are getting fixed. That's the biggest problem. the first week this was a problem. You can skill into basic tanks in a week. I believe you just read the forums and parrot what other people say. Your the problem He was quoting CCP Saberwing if I remember correctly. Your problem is that it is "you're." // Venge Captain // Matari Logistics / Scout / Pilot // @ReesNoturana
Cody Sietz Bullet Cluster Legacy Rising 1991	Posted - 2014.01.15 16:32:00 - [13] - Quote The problem with vehicle recall is that it works too well. Especially shield tanks, since most of the time they can recall cause the shields are just about up. I think not letting you recall while your modules are still in cool down or active. That really is the easiest fix. Edit: also, I'm fine with range we have not. But the dmg is just crap. If a Dropship get close enough I can hit him and make him run, but I shouldn't be able to him once he goes far enough away. Same goes for tanks, I should be able to sit on a tower and blow them up. "I do agree with you there though. shudders" -Arkena Wyrnspire
Vag Eye Lenol Planetary Asset Protection Services 13	Posted - 2014.01.15 16:36:00 - [14] - Quote (G) if enough damage to the armour, you can't recall it... at least in my dropships anyways... that's why i carry a rep tool....
trraacx Seituoda Taskforce Command Caldari State 62	Posted - 2014.01.15 16:36:00 - [15] - Quote RE's do stick to tanks. There does seem to be some wierd behaviors that prevent you from deploying an RE but they do stick if you can get them deployed.
Dusters Blog Galactic News Network 548	Posted - 2014.01.15 16:40:00 - [16] - Quote very good list. we linked it to the devs from our twitter account. we have supported better animations for entering and exiting vehicles for some time.
Rynoceros Rise Of Old Dudes 2115	Posted - 2014.01.15 17:01:00 - [17] - Quote +1 But, I have thought.... What if it required all seats to be occupied to operate a HAV? What their teams gains in killing power, they lose in the amount of infantry that is able to make hacks. So, now your team has to decide; do we battle to win by clone count or MCC destruction? Natalie Portman.
Eltra Ardell Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 293	Posted - 2014.01.15 17:07:00 - [18] - Quote Learn to spell before you scold others.
Loki Patera xCosmic Voidx Partners of Industrial Service and Salvage 90	Posted - 2014.01.15 17:16:00 - [19] - Quote Got a problem with tanks? Call in a missile or railgun tank. Problem solved. Also - I don't think the blaster is overpowered against infantry like most people. If you don't have something that devestates infantry at the base of the tank tree there is no reason for other tanks to be called in to deal with it. The outcome would be no tanks on the battlefield. Open Beta vet - in it for the long haul
Rynoceros Rise Of Old Dudes 2115	Posted - 2014.01.15 17:23:00 - [20] - Quote Loki Patera wrote: Got a problem with tanks? Call in a missile or railgun tank. Problem solved. Got a problem with infantry? Get a rifle and some skills. Problem solved. Or, be a little FotM *** and get a splashy Railgun or Missile Turret and 3000+ HP with instant reppers and outrun even the fastest Scout. (***** scrubs.) Natalie Portman.

skippy678 the.R3D.kings IMMORTAL REGIME 2414	Posted - 2014.01.15 17:29:00 - [21] - Quote I-Shayz-I wrote: They already said that militia tanks are getting fixed. That's the biggest problem. You have a link to that Shayz? So far I havent seen CCP make any statement with regards to "doing" anything to tanks...just one post where they accept that there is tank spam...I would love to see it if i missed it Level 2 Forum Warrior
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 3493	Posted - 2014.01.15 17:32:00 - [22] - Quote Flix Keptick wrote: Give me a marauder tank with a siege module and you won't see me flee from a battle (mainly because I couldn't move) Slap a Mobile CRU on that and you'll create New Eden's first Trojan Horse. Creator of The AV Registry The Pilot's Whipin' Boy // DJINN Lukeoplast's alleged sock Have I won the Forums Yet?
Dusters Blog Galactic News Network 548	Posted - 2014.01.15 18:06:00 - [23] - Quote Rynoceros wrote: +1 But, I have thought.... What if it required all seats to be occupied to operate a HAV? What their teams gains in killing power, they lose in the amount of infantry that is able to make hacks. So, now your team has to decide; do we battle to win by clone count or MCC destruction? one of our writers suggested this some time ago. a tank driver is just that...a DRIVER. He has to have someone get in to operate his cannons. that way operating a tank requires as much teamwork & coordination as it takes to destroy one. of course all the kdr obsessed were like 'no way i'm paying for a tank just so a blueberry can get all the kills.' easy solution here again, give the driver credit for any kills while turret operators get assists. CPM Hanz made a great suggestion via twitter "Main issue is price and lack of WP for partial damage. AV doesnt have to involve killing." this is pretty groundbreaking to us. The price for tanks obv has to go way up, but shouldnt providing a deterrent to vehicles yield wp? if you take 40% or more of a vehicles total health u should be rewarded for it.
Flix Keptick Red Star. EoN. 3307	Posted - 2014.01.15 18:50:00 - [24] - Quote Rynoceros wrote: Loki Patera wrote: Got a problem with tanks? Call in a missile or railgun tank. Problem solved. Got a problem with infantry? Get a rifle and some skills. Problem solved. Or, be a little FotM *** and get a splashy Railgun or Missile Turret and 3000+ HP with instant reppers and outrun even the fastest Scout. (***** scrubs.) Getting lots of infantry kills with missiles takes excellent aiming btw. And they don't benefit from the same aimbot as rifles do Lack of content makes stuff broken... Tank driver // specialized tank destroyer
The Attorney General 1747	Posted - 2014.01.15 18:53:00 - [25] - Quote Rynoceros wrote: Loki Patera wrote: Got a problem with tanks? Call in a missile or railgun tank. Problem solved. Got a problem with infantry? Get a rifle and some skills. Problem solved. Or, be a little FotM *** and get a splashy Railgun or Missile Turret and 3000+ HP with instant reppers and outrun even the fastest Scout. (***** scrubs.) Someone sucks at AV. Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 3497	Posted - 2014.01.15 18:57:00 - [26] - Quote The Attorney General wrote: Someone sucks at AV. Got anything other than ad-hominem and biased "trash talk" this time? If not, then the kiddie table is that way, where you can sip your apple juice in peace with all the others. If your nice, I may even purchase a bib for you. And sadly, that doesn't make what Rynoceros is saying any less true; though you don't need a rifle to solve your infantry problems Creator of The AV Registry The Pilot's Whipin' Boy // DJINN Lukeoplast's alleged sock Have I won the Forums Yet?
The Attorney General 1748	Posted - 2014.01.15 19:12:00 - [27] - Quote Atiim wrote: The Attorney General wrote: Someone sucks at AV. Got anything other than ad-hominem and biased "trash talk" this time? If not, then the kiddie table is that way, where you can sip your apple juice in peace with all the others. If your nice, I may even purchase a bib for you. And sadly, that doesn't make what Rynoceros is saying any less true; though you don't need a rifle to solve your infantry problems To whom do you think you are speaking? Have I not openly called for buffs to AV? Who amongst the AV crying circle can say the same? Where are the AV'ers who did call for nerfs when swarms or AV nades were OP? Can you find them? I doubt it very much. No, when AV was too strong, the AV group called everyone else scrubs. Yet today, you find more than just me repping the tankers saying that things need to change for AV to be more effective. When the forge was OP I was one of those calling for it be nerfed only in a manner that would not limit its use as an AV weapon. Where can you display an AV person arguing for missile and blaster tanks? No, I have a long and proven track record of being sensible, and making arguments that would promote balance and engaging gameplay. I am so sick and tired of the medium frame crybabies. The new patch has been out for long enough now that there is no reason for people to not have proto forges and basic advanced heavy frames, which makes a fantastic AV fit. I see plenty of idiots running around trying to swarm my shield tank. These are the types of people who complain about tanks being OP. Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
Supernus Gigas Star Giants 84	Posted - 2014.01.15 19:31:00 - [28] - Quote Rynoceros wrote: Loki Patera wrote: Got a problem with tanks? Call in a missile or railgun tank. Problem solved. Got a problem with infantry? Get a rifle and some skills. Problem solved. Or, be a little FotM *** and get a splashy Railgun or Missile Turret and 3000+ HP with instant reppers and outrun even the fastest Scout. (***** scrubs.) Hey now, don't be hating on Missile Turrets. I'm pretty sure only like five people in the entire game actually run Large Missiles on their HAV, me(my alt.) being one of them. My Missile Gunnlogi Eats Somas and Sicas for Breakfast.
True Adamance Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 5721	Posted - 2014.01.15 19:33:00 - [29] - Quote Rynoceros wrote: Loki Patera wrote: Got a problem with tanks? Call in a missile or railgun tank. Problem solved. Got a problem with infantry? Get a rifle and some skills. Problem solved. Or, be a little FotM *** and get a splashy Railgun or Missile Turret and 3000+ HP with instant reppers and outrun even the fastest Scout. (***** scrubs.) To be fair and I say this in every BS complaint thread like this. Why not simply redesign the focus of the HAV and draw it away from anti infantry roles? We have little information admiitedly, but information none the less that the MAV will have an anti infantry focus. This potentially being the case why not simply refocus HAV to be the highest tier anti vehicle unit on the ground with more of a focus on deploying massive ordinance to vehicles, strong points, etc. Refocusing the HAV's fire power to skill shotting infantry, and destroying other tanks, LAV, MAV, and eventually MTAC/Speeders, etc. "My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity."
Xender17 Ahrendee Mercenaries EoN. 979	Posted - 2014.01.15 19:45:00 - [30] - Quote Asha Starwind wrote: Also, why aren't there hard vehicle limits? e.g. 2 tanks 2 dropships 2 lavs per team? Do not say something along the lines of "to not alienate a player who has only specc'd into vehicles"because that is just BS. Give a valid argument as to why its BS and maybe vehicles wont be winning the argument as to why vehicle quota is unfair. Prt SL, SCR, SR . ADV FGs, MDs, LaZor, KNs. Gunnlogi, Falchion, Python, Caldari LDS. (+require) Prt L. Am, Adv HVY, LGS

Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 3502	Posted - 2014.01.15 20:25:00 - [31] - Quote The Attorney General wrote: To whom do you think you are speaking? Have I not openly called for buffs to AV? Who amongst the AV crying circle can say the same? Where are the AV'ers who did call for nerfs when swarms or AV nades were OP? Can you find them? I doubt it very much. No, when AV was too strong, the AV group called everyone else scrubs. Yet today, you find more than just me repping the tankers saying that things need to change for AV to be more effective. When the forge was OP I was one of those calling for it be nerfed only in a manner that would not limit its use as an AV weapon. Where can you display an AV person arguing for missile and blaster tanks? No, I have a long and proven track record of being sensible, and making arguments that would promote balance and engaging gameplay. I am so sick and tired of the medium frame crybabies. The new patch has been out for long enough now that there is no reason for people to not have proto forges and basic advanced heavy frames, which makes a fantastic AV fit. I see plenty of idiots running around trying to swarm my shield tank. These are the types of people who complain about tanks being OP. I can say the same. I actually stated my view on the V/AV problem here (Predating Uprising 1.7) I also remember stating how I disagreed with the Missile Turret nerf, though I never made to big a deal about that. As for the blaster turret, I decided to simply "wait and see" (something that won't ever happen again). Those "Medium Frame Crybabies" do have a point though. You should not have to skill into a certain dropsuit class just to deal with a niche role. What If I told Scouts that if they wanted to kill Medium Frames, they had to skill into heavies? That wouldn't seem too logical now would it? Also, I believe that everyone else (like me) that your telling to become a heavy is also refusing to do so because they are trying to save up as much SP as possible for when the other racial heavies are released in 1.8. (150k SP can be the difference between Operation IV or V.) And what if somebody's a Scout? What should they do if they want to kill tanks effectively? As for your first statement, that was a direct reply to your "somebody sucks at AV" statement. I will however, admit that I probably should have payed more attention to the conversation as opposed to simply dismissing the statement as "trash talk." My apologizes. Creator of The AV Registry The Pilot's Whipin' Boy // DJINN Lukeoplast's alleged sock Have I won the Forums Yet?
The Attorney General 1749	Posted - 2014.01.15 20:50:00 - [32] - Quote Atiim wrote: Those "Medium Frame Crybabies" do have a point though. You should not have to skill into a certain dropsuit class just to deal with a niche role. What If I told Scouts that if they wanted to kill Medium Frames, they had to skill into heavies? That wouldn't seem too logical now would it? Also, I believe that everyone else (like me) that your telling to become a heavy is also refusing to do so because they are trying to save up as much SP as possible for when the other racial heavies are released in 1.8. (150k SP can be the difference between Operation IV or V.) And what if somebody's a Scout? What should they do if they want to kill tanks effectively? As for your first statement, that was a direct reply to your "somebody sucks at AV" statement. I will however, admit that I probably should have payed more attention to the conversation as opposed to simply dismissing the statement as "trash talk." My apologizes. Tell me, which suit specifically mentions engaging vehicles in its description? Is it the medium frame? Is it the light frame? If someone has a desire to perform AV as a role, they spec heavy. If someone wants to have supplemental AV, they get the swarms and the PLC. That is the meta right now. Further, even if the swarms and PLC get buffed, this fundamental balance should not change. AV should be centered on the heavy suit, which has drawbacks against infantry, because then you can increase the power of AV without completely ***** up the balance of everything else. Do everything medium frames are not balanced. The heavy with a FG should be the peak of infantry based AV. It should have the HP and the damage output to drop vehicles while still being vulnerable to medium and light frames. As to the argument about people saving SP: That is complete BS. If you are on the forums complaining about tanks but refuse to drop 310k SP into an assault forge to deal with them, then I have no sympathy for you. If you refuse to put on a MLT heavy suit because it is not a medium frame, then why should anyone care about your opinion? On my alt, I normally run around in a Amarr logi suit, but as soon as a tank shows up, I immediately grab my forge and the necessary grenade. I don't have to fundamentally alter how I play the game just so that I have an effective AV fit. But I definitely have that option. If you don't, that is on you. At the very least people could use a MLT forge in a MLT fatsuit if they want to struglle at AV. Or they can invest some SP and watch stuff explode. But you can't sit on your SP and cry like a *. Unless you want to be derided for it. Atiim wrote:** And what if somebody's a Scout? What should they do if they want to kill tanks effectively? Not be a scout? Throw down an uplink and have an AV player spawn? Scan and track to feed intel to the heavies with FG's? Why does every frame need to be effective at killing tanks? Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
Aizen Intiki Hell's Gate Inc League of Infamy 688	Posted - 2014.01.15 20:52:00 - [33] - Quote Prius Vecht wrote: Only the most tanker homer guys and lovers of 'I win' buttons can defend the current state of tank dominance. CCP u guys are apparently looking at the metrics and are aware of the problems. What vehicle issues are you looking to resolve in 1.8? the vehicle issues as I see them are: a) Tanks dont cost nearly enough compared to their raw power. A tank should be 3x the cost of a proto suit if its going to be anywhere near as powerful as they are now. b) They are too fast. Faster than infantry is no problem but right now they're sportscar fast. c) You can't cripple them. Vehicles with less than half of its total health should be moving at 1/4 of normal speed. d) The enter/exit animation is a glitch. lets do away with teleporting in and out of vehicles and add actual animations that people cant take advantage of in a gunfight or to abandon a tank about to explode. Especially mr pop-out-in-an-instant Heavy in his LAV. e) The modules repair way too fast. going from crippled to full health in a split second? No Way. The increase should be gradual. f) Too many AV weapons are crap. The plasma cannon has a silly firing arc and doesn't do nearly enough damage for a weapon that reloads after every shot. Prox mines dont do enough damage (they should start @ 2000 per) and every vehicle has a mine detector. Shouldnt that be a module? REs should stick to tanks. g) You can recall them in an instant. No vehicle should be recalled if its damaged and they should have to wait on the RDV just like when theyre dropped off. No teleporting. Recalling cant be an exploit to get your tank out of harm's way when things go badly. h) AV was tuned badly. Swarms were taken down too much and AV grenades were too. Forges are the direct counter to vehicles and the hits should be devastating to them. Reduce grenade spam by making people equip grenades and then throw them with R1. 1: No, prices are fine, for MLT anyways. Nerf em', and the MLT modules, and STD and enhanced ones, and less problems will occour. 2: No they are not too fast. webs need to come in. 3: lolno. EWAR (which includes webs) is the solution, not that. we've passed that point of failure in engineering in New Eden, where our ** doesn't break until it breaks. 4: Agreed. Would be much cooler that way anyways. I would love to see myself climbing into a pod. 5: Firing arc for PLC is fine, and PLC is also a AI weapon (arguably more so than a AV weapon). Doesn't mean it needs work, just that isn't how to fix it. proxy mines can go up to 2k damage, but the detector needs to stay. Half the time they don't show up when scanned down, and the sound is quite low when fighting. Most of the time, I see them before I hear them. 6: No, that's stupid. Rather, it should be a instant timer, and a RDV picks it up. Once picked up, if there is a cooldown on a module, the vehicle can't be called back until it's done. once the cooldown is gone, it will repair the shields and the armor up to 100HP/s or anything higher if the repper can do so. If you have multiple hulls of the same fit, you can call in those. That works far better. 7:AV weapons are fine. People is just still used to easy mode, and doesn't want to change from that. stop sitting still, go a pair, and chase that ** down. "Hello, world!" lol, sounds like something a whore lover would say Alt of the great Godin I like chocolate ^___**^
Flix Keptick Red Star. EoN. 3309	Posted - 2014.01.15 21:02:00 - [34] - Quote The Attorney General wrote: Atiim wrote: The Attorney General wrote: Someone sucks at AV. Got anything other than ad-hominem and biased "trash talk" this time? If not, then the kiddie table is that way, where you can sip your apple juice in peace with all the others. If your nice, I may even purchase a bib for you. And sadly, that doesn't make what Rynoceros is saying any less true; though you don't need a rifle to solve your infantry problems To whom do you think you are speaking? Have I not openly called for buffs to AV? Who amongst the AV crying circle can say the same? Where are the AV'ers who did call for nerfs when swarms or AV nades were OP? Can you find them? I doubt it very much. No, when AV was too strong, the AV group called everyone else scrubs. Yet today, you find more than just me repping the tankers saying that things need to change for AV to be more effective. When the forge was OP I was one of those calling for it be nerfed only in a manner that would not limit its use as an AV weapon. Where can you display an AV person arguing for missile and blaster tanks? No, I have a long and proven track record of being sensible, and making arguments that would promote balance and engaging gameplay. I am so sick and tired of the medium frame crybabies. The new patch has been out for long enough now that there is no reason for people to not have proto forges and basic advanced heavy frames, which makes a fantastic AV fit. I see plenty of idiots running around trying to swarm my shield tank. These are the types of people who complain about tanks being OP. THIS, omfg so much of this!!! The reasons you enumerated are why I ******* hate the community now... Lack of content makes stuff broken... Tank driver // specialized tank destroyer
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 3507	Posted - 2014.01.15 22:26:00 - [35] - Quote The Attorney General wrote: Tell me, which suit specifically mentions engaging vehicles in its description? Is it the medium frame? Is it the light frame? If someone has a desire to perform AV as a role, they spec heavy. If someone wants to have supplemental AV, they get the swarms and the PLC. That is the meta right now. Further, even if the swarms and PLC get buffed, this fundamental balance should not change. AV should be centered on the heavy suit, which has drawbacks against infantry, because then you can increase the power of AV without completely ***** up the balance of everything else. Do everything medium frames are not balanced. The heavy with a FG should be the peak of infantry based AV. It should have the HP and the damage output to drop vehicles while still being vulnerable to medium and light frames. As to the argument about people saving SP: That is complete BS. If you are on the forums complaining about tanks but refuse to drop 310k SP into an assault forge to deal with them, then I have no sympathy for you. If you refuse to put on a MLT heavy suit because it is not a medium frame, then why should anyone care about your opinion? On my alt, I normally run around in a Amarr logi suit, but as soon as a tank shows up, I immediately grab my forge and the necessary grenade. I don't have to fundamentally alter how I play the game just so that I have an effective AV fit. But I definitely have that option. If you don't, that is on you. At the very least people could use a MLT forge in a MLT fatsuit if they want to struglle at AV. Or they can invest some SP and watch stuff explode. But you can't sit on your SP and cry like a *. Unless you want to be derided for it. Atiim wrote: And what if somebody's a Scout? What should they do if they want to kill tanks effectively? Not be a scout? Throw down an uplink and have an AV player spawn? Scan and track to feed intel to the heavies with FG's? Why does every frame need to be effective at killing tanks? Man, it's a good thing you have no final say nor affiliation with CCP. Otherwise this game would quickly become HeavyForgeGun 514. The Meta? The current meta is Medium Frames holding rifles? You want that? God help us all if anyone ever takes your statement on the meta seriously. Which brings me to my second point. I am not refusing to spec into heavy frames simply because it's not a Medium Frame. However, I won't discuss my reasons with you; for I'm sure that you'll simply use 3rd grade logic to lead back to your baseless argument about how "He won't do it because it's not a Medium Frame." Good attempt at trolling though. 5/10. 310k? I don't even have 100k yet. But since we are on the whole SP subject. I have spent nearly 10m SP maxing out skills involving Swarm Launchers. Why would I (or any logical person), go spend millions more SP on something simply because some nut on the forums said that the other gun should be the MASTER RACE of that role? Which brings me to yet another point. Why would anyone in their right mind use a weapon when one weapon is theoretically better in literally every way possible? You can have a gun that kills things in 2-4 shots and requires two people at best, coupled by a suit that gives you a good defense against enemy attacks, and twice the range OR you can have a gun that kills things in 5-8 shots, requires coordination from an entire squad, and leaves you practically defenseless from every weapon in the game. Whichever shall I pick? I ~~invested~~ wasted over 10mil. That gives me the right to watch things explode. Care to troll again? Why does every frame have to be effective at killing tanks you ask? Because tanks are... Wait for it.... Wait for it... A NICHE! That's like asking why every frame type needs to be good against Laser Rifles. A niche is not supposed to have only 1 effective counter. And last time I checked, tanks are a niche role, not a "be all, end all things but one" class. If you can quote and link a post from a CCP developer saying otherwise, then I'll gladly accept your FORGE MASTER RACE bull$#!t. PS: If you can give me one good reason as to why anyone should use a Forge Gun over Swarms and Plasma Cannons (assuming they haven't invested SP into the latter) under your logic, then I will empty what little ISK I have left into refunding the ISK of every vehicle that I have ever destroyed. (And looking at the numbers from the AV registry, that's a lot of ISK). 7/10 You managed to put me in a bad mood. Now I'm gonna go play some ROMs on my laptop to go blow of some steam. [/HAND] Creator of The AV Registry The Pilot's Whipin' Boy // DJINN Lukeoplast's alleged sock FORGE MASTER RACE**
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 3507	Posted - 2014.01.15 22:27:00 - [36] - Quote Flix Keptick wrote: THIS, omfg so much of this!!! The reasons you enumerated are why I ***** hate the community now... Everyone needs to grow a *** pair and HTFU instead of complaining like little kids over subjects that have already been discussed to death. Hypocrite much? Creator of The AV Registry The Pilot's Whipin' Boy // DJINN Lukeoplast's alleged sock FORGE MASTER RACE**
True Adamance Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 5749	Posted - 2014.01.15 22:30:00 - [37] - Quote Atiim wrote: Flix Keptick wrote: THIS, omfg so much of this!!! The reasons you enumerated are why I ***** hate the community now... Everyone needs to grow a ***** pair and HTFU instead of complaining like little kids over subjects that have already been discussed to death. Hypocrite much? True enough but if we are playing tit for tat game then you have to suffer for another 2-3 months under the HAV models and then we will be even. I suggest you be a bit more adult about this Atiim. I realised the error we made in trying to address of the tanks weaknesses at one time while, which I why I admit that change is necessary. You should probably not give credence when others get frustrated, it only makes their case that much more personal for them. "My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity."
Reiki Jubo Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 234	Posted - 2014.01.15 23:02:00 - [38] - Quote Aizen Intiki wrote: Prius Vecht wrote: Only the most tanker homer guys and lovers of 'I win' buttons can defend the current state of tank dominance. CCP u guys are apparently looking at the metrics and are aware of the problems. What vehicle issues are you looking to resolve in 1.8? the vehicle issues as I see them are: a) Tanks dont cost nearly enough compared to their raw power. A tank should be 3x the cost of a proto suit if its going to be anywhere near as powerful as they are now. b) They are too fast. Faster than infantry is no problem but right now they're sportscar fast. c) You can't cripple them. Vehicles with less than half of its total health should be moving at 1/4 of normal speed. d) The enter/exit animation is a glitch. lets do away with teleporting in and out of vehicles and add actual animations that people cant take advantage of in a gunfight or to abandon a tank about to explode. Especially mr pop-out-in-an-instant Heavy in his LAV. e) The modules repair way too fast. going from crippled to full health in a split second? No Way. The increase should be gradual. f) Too many AV weapons are crap. The plasma cannon has a silly firing arc and doesn't do nearly enough damage for a weapon that reloads after every shot. Prox mines dont do enough damage (they should start @ 2000 per) and every vehicle has a mine detector. Shouldnt that be a module? REs should stick to tanks. g) You can recall them in an instant. No vehicle should be recalled if its damaged and they should have to wait on the RDV just like when theyre dropped off. No teleporting. Recalling cant be an exploit to get your tank out of harm's way when things go badly. h) AV was tuned badly. Swarms were taken down too much and AV grenades were too. Forges are the direct counter to vehicles and the hits should be devastating to them. Reduce grenade spam by making people equip grenades and then throw them with R1. 1: No, prices are fine, for MLT anyways. Nerf em', and the MLT modules, and STD and enhanced ones, and less problems will occour. 2: No they are not too fast. webs need to come in. 3: lolno. EWAR (which includes webs) is the solution, not that. we've passed that point of failure in engineering in New Eden, where our ** doesn't break until it breaks. 4: Agreed. Would be much cooler that way anyways. I would love to see myself climbing into a pod. 5: Firing arc for PLC is fine, and PLC is also a AI weapon (arguably more so than a AV weapon). Doesn't mean it needs work, just that isn't how to fix it. proxy mines can go up to 2k damage, but the detector needs to stay. Half the time they don't show up when scanned down, and the sound is quite low when fighting. Most of the time, I see them before I hear them. 6: No, that's stupid. Rather, it should be a instant timer, and a RDV picks it up. Once picked up, if there is a cooldown on a module, the vehicle can't be called back until it's done. once the cooldown is gone, it will repair the shields and the armor up to 100HP/s or anything higher if the repper can do so. If you have multiple hulls of the same fit, you can call in those. That works far better. 7:AV weapons are fine. People is just still used to easy mode, and doesn't want to change from that. stop sitting still, go a pair, and chase that **** down. congratulations, ur whats wrong with Dust. what rational person says AV is balanced, defends the tank speed, crippling damage and the mine detector that means only complete morons hit prox mines. not sure i've ever seen a dumber response on this forum. basically ur saying tanks are fine. the kids do so love their I WIN buttons.
The Attorney General 1756	Posted - 2014.01.15 23:11:00 - [39] - Quote Atiim wrote: Man, it's a good thing you have no final say nor affiliation with CCP. Otherwise this game would quickly become HeavyForgeGun 514. The Meta? The current meta is Medium Frames holding rifles? You want that? God help us all if anyone ever takes your statement on the meta seriously. Willfully ignorant, ignored. Atiim wrote: Which brings me to my second point. I am not refusing to spec into heavy frames simply because it's not a Medium Frame. However, I won't discuss my reasons with you; for I'm sure that you'll simply use 3rd grade logic to lead back to your baseless argument about how "He won't do it because it's not a Medium Frame." Good attempt at trolling though. 5/10. You won't discuss why you won't spec AV, then don't discuss why you think tanks are OP. Atiim wrote: 310k? I don't even have 100k yet. But since we are on the whole SP subject. I have spent nearly 10m SP maxing out skills involving Swarm Launchers. Why would I (or any logical person), go spend millions more SP on something simply because some nut on the forums said that the other gun should be the MASTER RACE of that role? So you spent 10 mill SP into swarms, an OP weapon, and complain when they get nerfed. Go ask the Cal logis how that worked out for them. When tanks get nerfed, the only people who will still be playing them are people who like tanking. If you like spamming fire and forget missiles, then you spent your SP wisely. If you invested heavily becuase htey were OP, then you are paying the price for being a scrub. But if you refuse to spend a weeks worth of SP for an effective vehicle counter, than you are in no position to complain about tanks messing you up. Atiim wrote: Which brings me to yet another point. Why would anyone in their right mind use a weapon when one weapon is theoretically better in literally every way possible? You can have a gun that kills things in 2-4 shots and requires two people at best, coupled by a suit that gives you a good defense against enemy attacks, and twice the range OR you can have a gun that kills things in 5-8 shots, requires coordination from an entire squad, and leaves you practically defenseless from every weapon in the game. I don't know why people would still be using swarms, especially against shield tanks. But it happens all the time. People are just stupid I guess. Continued below. Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
The Attorney General 1756	Posted - 2014.01.15 23:17:00 - [40] - Quote Atiim wrote: Why does every frame have to be effective at killing tanks you ask? Because tanks are... Wait for it.... Wait for it... A NICHE! That's like asking why every frame type needs to be good against Laser Rifles. A niche is not supposed to have only 1 effective counter. Vehicles are a role, just like a heavy, a logi, or a scout. Even if they were not, there are more than one counter. FG, RE's and Prox, or a combo of medium frames. Not to mention the vehicle counters. Atiim wrote: And last time I checked, tanks are a niche role, not a "be all, end all things but one" class. If you can quote and link a post from a CCP developer saying otherwise, then I'll gladly accept your FORGE MASTER RACE bull$#!t. PS: If you can give me one good reason as to why anyone should use a Forge Gun over Swarms and Plasma Cannons (assuming they haven't invested SP into the latter) under your logic, then I will empty what little ISK I have left into refunding the ISK of every vehicle that I have ever destroyed. (And looking at the numbers from the AV registry, that's a lot of ISK). 7/10 You managed to put me in a bad mood. Now I'm gonna go play some ROMs on my laptop to go blow of some steam. [/HAND] Last time I checked, armor is a critical component on battlefields, not just a sideshow. As for your request for a reason to spec FG, here is the only one you should need: It works. If you claim to be an AV'er, then that is reason enough. Otherwise, stop pretending that you have any considerations for real AV work, and just admit you want your OP swarms back so you can go back to being a scrub camped up on a tower spamming missiles. Mr. Hybrid Vayu.

The Attorney General 1758	Posted - 2014.01.15 23:18:00 - [41] - Quote Atiim wrote: I ~~invested~~ wasted over 10mil. That gives me the right to watch things explode. Care to troll again? When you start talking about your rights in video games, it is time to step away and reevaluate your life. You have no rights, certainly not in a video game. Grow up. Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 3509	Posted - 2014.01.16 01:29:00 - [42] - Quote The Attorney General wrote: Atiim wrote: Man, it's a good thing you have no final say nor affiliation with CCP. Otherwise this game would quickly become HeavyForgeGun 514. The Meta? The current meta is Medium Frames holding rifles? You want that? God help us all if anyone ever takes your statement on the meta seriously. Willfully ignorant, ignored. And your insult as to why I won't spec into heavies wasn't? Atiim wrote: Which brings me to my second point. I am not refusing to spec into heavy frames simply because it's not a Medium Frame. However, I won't discuss my reasons with you; for I'm sure that you'll simply use 3rd grade logic to lead back to your baseless argument about how "He won't do it because it's not a Medium Frame." Good attempt at trolling though. 5/10. You won't discuss why you won't spec AV, then don't discuss why you think tanks are OP. Heavy Frames aren't AV. And I am already deeply 'speced' into AV, so I will discuss why I think tanks are OP. Atiim wrote: 310k? I don't even have 100k yet. But since we are on the whole SP subject. I have spent nearly 10m SP maxing out skills involving Swarm Launchers. Why would I (or any logical person), go spend millions more SP on something simply because some nut on the forums said that the other gun should be the MASTER RACE of that role? So you spent 10 mill SP into swarms, an OP weapon, and complain when they get nerfed. Go ask the Cal logis how that worked out for them. When tanks get nerfed, the only people who will still be playing them are people who like tanking. If you like spamming fire and forget missiles, then you spent your SP wisely. If you invested heavily because they were OP, then you are paying the price for being a scrub. But if you refuse to spend a weeks worth of SP for an effective vehicle counter, than you are in no position to complain about tanks messing you up. Should I willfully ignore this? According to what you stated, you have no rights, especially in a video game. So by your sayings alone, you have no right to say that Swarm Launchers were OP. (But since playing Ocarina of Time put me in such a good mood, I'll respond to this blatant double standard anyway). I love how tankers like to use the fire and forget tern, Unfortunately, the insult doesn't mean much when turrets themselves don't require any skill beyond joystick rotation and R1. Heck, that actually applies to tanks themselves as well. Unless you find that there is an actual skill in activating a hardener and holding down R1. I invested into Swarm Launchers because there is no Minmatar or Caldari heavy, and because Plasma Cannons are not viable. But hey keep making more baseless assumptions that are in the form of insults. It won't make your point any more or less truthful. The answer to something being underpowered is not to skill into something else, nor is it to stop using your weapon. If you truly believe this, then you would go into Scout Registry right now and tell every scout there to HTFU and skill into a Medium Frame. You and I both know that you wouldn't do this, so I'll just leave this other double standard at ease for now. Atiim wrote: Which brings me to yet another point. Why would anyone in their right mind use a weapon when one weapon is theoretically better in literally every way possible? You can have a gun that kills things in 2-4 shots and requires two people at best, coupled by a suit that gives you a good defense against enemy attacks, and twice the range OR you can have a gun that kills things in 5-8 shots, requires coordination from an entire squad, and leaves you practically defenseless from every weapon in the game. I don't know why people would still be using swarms, especially against shield tanks. But it happens all the time. People are just stupid I guess. Continued below. I don't know, maybe it's because they have 10mil+ SP invested and don't want to waste nearly 2 months worth of SP skilling into something else? But your right, it's abusrd to use the thing that you invested months worth of time and SP into Though not many are actually using Swarms anymore. They've moved on to Sicas/Gunnlogies with Particle Accelerators and State Particle Cannons. I guess that's mission accomplished for the pilot community eh? Reading on now. ((Bear with me here, I don't want to reach the max quote limit), nor create an entire page doing this.) Creator of The AV Registry The Pilot's Whipin' Boy // DJINN Lukeoplast's alleged sock *FORGE MASTER RACE*
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 3510	Posted - 2014.01.16 02:19:00 - [43] - Quote The Attorney General wrote: Atiim wrote: Why does every frame have to be effective at killing tanks you ask? Because tanks are... Wait for it.... Wait for it... A NICHE! That's like asking why every frame type needs to be good against Laser Rifles. A niche is not supposed to have only 1 effective counter. Vehicles are a role, just like a heavy, a logi, or a scout. Even if they were not, there are more than one counter. FG, RE's and Prox, or a combo of medium frames. Not to mention the vehicle counters. Roles don't have only one effective counter, they have multiple counters. And vehicles are also a Niche. Why? Because there is a hard-cap on the amount that can be in the field, they can't access indoor areas that infantry can, and most importantly, you need an infantry dropsuit to use them. moving on now. Technically, Plasma Cannons are an counter to a Dropship, but is it effective? Lolno. Removing multiple people from the rest of the battle to deal with one person is not effective .Remote Explosives are a joke, and anyone who is killed by them either has their TV muted or is a complete scrub. Then again, if tankers are advocating them as viable, that would explain a lot wouldn't it? If something is theoretically better than every other weapon designed for it's purpose in every way possible, then every other weapon designed for the same purpose is ineffective. Maybe I wasn't clear the last few times, So I'll state it again. No item should ever be theoretically better than the other item intended for it's same purpose in every way that matters. This makes the other weapons ineffective, and guarantees that nobody will use anything other than said weapon; which negates the purpose of it's existence in the first place. Despite your belief, AV isn't, nor should be FORGE MASTER RACE. It should be SL=/=FG=/=PLC Atiim wrote: And last time I checked, tanks are a niche role, not a "be all, end all things but one" class. If you can quote and link a post from a CCP developer saying otherwise, then I'll gladly accept your FORGE MASTER RACE bull$#!t. PS: If you can give me one good reason as to why anyone should use a Forge Gun over Swarms and Plasma Cannons (assuming they haven't invested SP into the latter) under your logic, then I will empty what little ISK I have left into refunding the ISK of every vehicle that I have ever destroyed. (And looking at the numbers from the AV registry, that's a lot of ISK). 7/10 You managed to put me in a bad mood. Now I'm gonna go play some ROMs on my laptop to go blow of some steam. [/HAND] Last time I checked, armor is a critical component on battlefields, not just a sideshow. As for your request for a reason to spec FG, here is the only one you should need: It works. If you claim to be an AV'er, then that is reason enough. Otherwise, stop pretending that you have any considerations for real AV work, and just admit you want your OP swarms back so you can go back to being a scrub camped up on a tower spamming missiles. I'm not saying vehicles are a sideshow. I'm saying they aren't the "Be all, End all but one" class that your FORGE MASTER RACE mentality would like to believe. Because "It Works?" lmao If you believe that true AVers actually follow that ideal, then you clearly have no idea of what a true AVer is whatsoever. This is why I always get a good laugh everytime a dedicated tanker calls themselves AV. You may sit down now. Dude, I want to send you a bro-hug and some ISK right now. Nothing any tanker has ever told me (or anyone) has been so hilarious before. I thought that my last laugh would have been when Spkr4TheDead sent me mail calling himself dedicated AV. Never once spammed missiles from a tower unless I was fighting an Assault Dropship that was also hovering over a tower (which wouldn't really be spamming tbh). No, I don't want to 3 shot tanks again (unless it's MLT/STD fitted). No I do not want 400m back. Heck, the "It works" mentality that your biased, tunnelvisioned. head that believes that AV actually follows that mentality would imply that we want to 3 shot properly fitted vehicles again (which wasn't even capable in the first place). It would also imply that we want the ability to destroy MCCs like Forge Guns used to do. And until you can present any irrefutable proof of the dedicated AV community ever following or saying the "it works" statement or anything in that last paragraph, your "argument" (or lack thereof) is ad-hominem at best. You may sit down now. And please refrain from acting as if you have even the slightest thing about true AVers, for you clearly have none. Get back in your tank. Creator of The AV Registry The Pilot's Whipin' Boy // DJINN Lukeoplast's alleged sock *FORGE MASTER RACE*
Rynoceros Rise Of Old Dudes 2118	Posted - 2014.01.16 02:20:00 - [44] - Quote The Attorney General wrote: Rynoceros wrote: Loki Patera wrote: Got a problem with tanks? Call in a missile or railgun tank. Problem solved. Got a problem with infantry? Get a rifle and some skills. Problem solved. Or, be a little FotM *** and get a splashy Railgun or Missile Turret and 3000+ HP with instant reppers and outrun even the fastest Scout. (*** scrubs.) Someone sucks at AV. Actually, somebody just doesn't believe that they should have to put >2,000,000 SP into AV just to traverse 180m, because some *** thought they needed to deploy 3 tanks to combat 16 people. Meanwhile, I'm stuck in an extremely susceptible Proto fitting because those same assholes in ***** MLT gear destroyed the only Supply Depot outside of the redline. Natalie Portman.
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 3510	Posted - 2014.01.16 02:22:00 - [45] - Quote The Attorney General wrote: Atiim wrote: I ~~invested~~ wasted over 10mil. That gives me the right to watch things explode. Care to troll again? When you start talking about your rights in video games, it is time to step away and reevaluate your life. You have no rights, certainly not in a video game. Grow up. Not going to discuss my personal life with random people on the internet, so I'll leave the 1st and 3rd as is. As for your second insult, can you possibly show any more blatant Double Standards? You have no rights, therefore I never want to hear the words "AV was OP" from you; as you have no right to say AV was OP by your logic. As they always say, "Take your own advice" (Thought that would be asking a bit much from a biased tanker like yourself). Creator of The AV Registry The Pilot's Whipin' Boy // DJINN Lukeoplast's alleged sock *FORGE MASTER RACE*
Heinrich Jagerblitzen D3LTA FORC3 1392	Posted - 2014.01.16 05:57:00 - [46] - Quote Thanks for the excellent summary, Prius. o7 I'll break down my thoughts on each of the points here. First off - I'm not one of those that think tanks are totally broken or OP, though there are some sensible adjustments that need to be made to make the current situation a lot healthier. There are typically two schools of thought where tanks are concerned (though this could apply to any vehicle really): those that believe tanks should be incredibly solid, expensive, and powerful...and those that see vehicles more as a commodity, cheap like dropsuits, hit points well within range of most A/V weapons without too much struggle. I'm much more in the former camp, I think HAV's should noticeably warp the play around them, otherwise there's not much value of having them in the game at all. HAV's on the field should require squads to re-think their approach on an objective, and present a threat that must be removed in order to progress around the map and succeed. Not to mention, HAV's are an expense above and beyond a dropsuit, and require extra time to call into battle, presenting enough of a hassle that the more disposable design of the past gets pretty miserably for players who really enjoy tanking. I'm perfectly fine with a skilled tanker having a long survivability, as long as there are appropriate checks and balances to that level of staying power. The problem is that CCP shifted too many variables at once, too strongly in opposite directions. They made HAV's more powerful, while reducing cost. Before the revamp, there were two roads CCP could have taken - slash vehicle costs, but leave the design and resiliency the same, or crank up the resiliency but leave the cost at an appropriate value. My recommendation at the time was to reduce costs, and I take responsibility for that as a CPM representative - but remember that reducing costs was one of the most common requests amongst vehicle users prior to the revamp. However, I also had no way of knowing exactly how strong they'd become, or how far CCP would slash the costs, until it was released and we saw firsthand how this all played out. Instead of the two variables meeting in the middle, they sailed past each other. All that out of the way, here's my summarized thoughts on each of your points here: a) Strongly Agree. As I've explained, I also agree that the power-to-cost ratio is too high right now, and think a price adjustment is absolutely reasonable given how long these can last in the hands of a skilled driver. b) Strongly disagree. Without getting into somewhat irrelevant real-world examples, there's really nothing wrong with a fast tank. And certainly given the fact that these are the tanks of the future, I see no reason to make them crawl like sitting ducks all the time. From a gameplay perspective, the current speed of tanks is annoying - but its not unmanageable. There speedy counters in the form of Jihad Jeeps (an emergent, fun, and healthy tactic I think should stay), but more importantly, they allow Tanks to be either a threat, or not a threat, without having to choose between being alive or dead. This is the drawback of the old system - the only counter to a vehicle was to just nuke it. I found this particularly boring (moreso because slow tanks were a laughably easy target). It was even more frustrating for those that wanted to be full-time vehicle specialists, especially since they couldn't just spawn into a new vehicle the way that infantry can with dropsuits. Instead of a binary system where tanks are either alive or dead, now we have a much more interesting variety of states where a tank can be alive, but no longer a threat, because he's in the process of retreating to safety. I'd much rather see harder counters to speed be added for infantry in the form of stasis webifier grenades, and I'd much rather A/V players spend more time figuring out ways to exploit HAV's current weaknesses (such as positioning themselves at opposite ends of the map in order to finish off vehicles chased off by their partner on the other side). A/V should be a skilled role - and that skill is greatly diminished by turning HAV's into sitting ducks. Eventually the maps will be growing beyond the tiny zones we can currently fight in, and the slow plodding tank model is just extremely anachronistic and unnecessary. c.) Somewhat disagree. Sure, a crippling / disabling mechanic would be really interesting, but it also presents a number of additional design problems. If you can actually cripple the HAV, a swift death is going to come not too far behind, especially since it'll allow for more gangbanging and pile-on attacks. This basically mitigates all the value of having a working defense mechanism, and brings us right back to the old binary system where a tank is either not being shot at, or its dead. To really make crippling an HAV viable and interesting gameplay, you'd have to buff the tanking period even further - to allow for something interesting to happen once you've actually disabled it, besides just allowing a quick finish. If we're going to have a disable mechanic, there better be some damn good "last stand" gameplay associated with it, complete with epic Logistical saves where squads had a chance to un**** their buddy and get him on the road again. And really, this is a whole separate revamp we're talking to accommodate all this. It's just not that easy to say "move 1/4 speed".
Heinrich Jagerblitzen D3LTA FORC3 1392	Posted - 2014.01.16 05:58:00 - [47] - Quote d) Somewhat disagree. First off, its not a "glitch", lets describe this accurately and just admit that there's no animation designed for vehicles. There's a difference between suboptimal design and something intended one way and functioning another. And sure, there's a lot of good reasons to have mount/dismount animations, but these also carry their own baggage, much like crippling mechanics do. Its one more painful moment of vulnerability for those that want to be full-time tankers, and only strengthens my belief that this extra inconvenience should always be offset with a very high degree of resiliency once you're inside the tank
Reiki Jubo Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 236	Posted - 2014.01.16 06:51:00 - [48] - Quote WP for damaging vehicles a very good idea +1.
Mobius Wyvern Ahrendee Mercenaries EoN. 4471	Posted - 2014.01.16 07:08:00 - [49] - Quote Heinrich Jagerblitzen wrote: I will add one last missing piece of the puzzle - now that CCP has implemented an anti-farming mechanism, its time to reinstate War Points for partial damage on vehicles. Part of all the QQ over tank power (which I attribute more accurately to A/V being underpowered) is rooted in this deep-seated assumption that the role of the A/V specialist is to actually kill the vehicle. And really, the only reason we've grown used to this is because of a long period where HAV's and vehicles in general were a joke in terms of how easy they were to pop. Vehicle users deserve gameplay where they can stay in their vehicles most of the time, and to accomplish this we really need the existing "windows of opportunity" system to do its job. That said, successfully sending a dropship high in the air or a sending a tank off into the hills is still removing it as an immediate threat, and isn't that much different than popping it and forcing the tanker to call in another from somewhere distant. It's time to bring back WP's and for A/V users to get credit for protecting their infantry brethren whether or not they actually kill the HAV to get rid of it for a period of time. o7 CANNOT LIKE THIS ENOUGH. I spent most of a match chasing an HAV around 3 complete circuits of the 5-point map with the bridge between E and D, dropped him into armor over and over at which point he would narrowly escape, and in return for keeping him from getting any kills and effectively making him useless to his team, I got NOTHING. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector

CCP Saberwing C C P C C P Alliance 1006	Posted - 2014.01.16 07:28:00 - [50] - Quote Really digging Hans' post further above. I refrained from commenting previously because I wanted to discuss things through with CPM members. I'll make sure the relevant Design guys see this thread. General consensus between ourselves and the CPM appears to be that - Vehicles have taken a step in the right direction but we will be looking to make some additional adjustments to bring them in line with where we think they should finally sit. CCP Saberwing // DUST 514 Community Manager // @kanafchian


X7 lion Swamp Marines 76	Posted - 2014.01.16 07:37:00 - [51] - Quote Prius Vecht wrote: b) They are too fast. Faster than infantry is no problem but right now they're sportscar fast. c) You can't cripple them. Vehicles with less than half of its total health should be moving at 1/4 of normal speed. d) The enter/exit animation is a glitch. lets do away with teleporting in and out of vehicles and add actual animations that people cant take advantage of in a gunfight or to abandon a tank about to explode. Especially mr pop-out-in-an-instant Heavy in his LAV. e) The modules repair way too fast. going from crippled to full health in a split second? No Way. The increase should be gradual. f) Too many AV weapons are crap. The plasma cannon has a silly firing arc and doesn't do nearly enough damage for a weapon that reloads after every shot. Prox mines dont do enough damage (they should start @ 2000 per) and every vehicle has a mine detector. Shouldnt that be a module? REs should stick to tanks. g) You can recall them in an instant. No vehicle should be recalled if its damaged and they should have to wait on the RDV just like when theyre dropped off. No teleporting. Recalling cant be an exploit to get your tank out of harm's way when things go badly. h) AV was tuned badly. Swarms were taken down too much and AV grenades were too. Forges are the direct counter to vehicles and the hits should be devastating to them. Reduce grenade spam by making people equip grenades and then throw them with R1. just for the record a modern tank max speed is about 65 km/h & these are future tanks so thats just abit of bitching with out a solution offered, maybe change up the way the move and are controlled. plasma cannon isnt av its anti material "good for dealing with groups of peope" (if it wasnt a broken pile of arse) you cant recall damaged vehicles but you a few hundred hp is more then a drop suit witch over a surface area of a tank is recoverable. swarms distance was nerf'd to make them a defense weapon, as apossed to i sit far away from you and fire i win tracking missile at you. tank pricing may need to be looked at but most importantly ITS A TANK ITS NOT MENT TO BE KILLED BY ONE GUY cough unless its a **** tank and good av but ya know....
Shion Typhon Intara Direct Action Caldari State 368	Posted - 2014.01.16 07:50:00 - [52] - Quote CCP Saberwing wrote: General consensus between ourselves and the CPM appears to be that - Vehicles have taken a step in the right direction Really? Seriously? This "waves" design principle is absolutely 1000% the wrong approach, just think about how it works, if you can't see the gameplay problem of surges of invulnerability I think you should stop designing games.
The dark cloud The Rainbow Effect 2066	Posted - 2014.01.16 07:51:00 - [53] - Quote CCP you could end this debate witth 1 single change to the game: -allow the usage of all weapons while beeing a passanger in a dropship/LAV. The current situation is mainly frustrating for AV cause tanks can just drive off with too much speed which results getting out of range or into cover. With dropships and swarm/forgegunners standing in the door to continue pressure to hostile vehicles on the move could solve the whole balance. Tankers claim that it should take teamwork to take them out. Then we should get the tools to achieve this. Now you could hear tankers complain "but a LAV with a forgegun is like a tank!" no its not. It has much lower HP and can be taken out with 2 swarm volleys. If tankers say that AV should require teamwork then it should take teamwork to protect them against AV dropships. I shall show you a world, a world which you cant imagine, a world full off butthurt n00bs at the other end of my gun
Piraten Hovnoret Molon Labe. Public Disorder. 228	Posted - 2014.01.16 07:53:00 - [54] - Quote Eltra Ardell wrote: Learn to spell before you scold others. And the spelling police will always be out there to protect the people from bad English. War never changes
Aqil Aegivan The Southern Legion The Umbra Combine 271	Posted - 2014.01.16 08:05:00 - [55] - Quote CCP Saberwing wrote: Really digging Hans' post further above. I refrained from commenting previously because I wanted to discuss things through with CPM members. I'll make sure the relevant Design guys see this thread. General consensus between ourselves and the CPM appears to be that - Vehicles have taken a step in the right direction but we will be looking to make some additional adjustments to bring them in line with where we think they should finally sit. Shhh... Everyone, unless I miss my guess we're about to see CCP try to balance a transitive strategy using ISK.
Dusters Blog Galactic News Network 549	Posted - 2014.01.16 08:09:00 - [56] - Quote The dark cloud wrote: CCP you could end this debate witth 1 single change to the game: -allow the usage of all weapons while beeing a passanger in a dropship/LAV. The current situation is mainly frustrating for AV cause tanks can just drive off with too much speed which results getting out of range or into cover. With dropships and swarm/forgegunners standing in the door to continue pressure to hostile vehicles on the move could solve the whole balance. Tankers claim that it should take teamwork to take them out. Then we should get the tools to achieve this. Now you could hear tankers complain "but a LAV with a forgegun is like a tank!" no its not. It has much lower HP and can be taken out with 2 swarm volleys. If tankers say that AV should require teamwork then it should take teamwork to protect them against AV dropships. this is a pretty good idea and is organic and meta. give players the tools and let them have at it.
Rei Shepard The Rainbow Effect 1432	Posted - 2014.01.16 08:17:00 - [57] - Quote CCP Saberwing wrote: Really digging Hans' post further above. I refrained from commenting previously because I wanted to discuss things through with CPM members. I'll make sure the relevant Design guys see this thread. General consensus between ourselves and the CPM appears to be that - Vehicles have taken a step in the right direction but we will be looking to make some additional adjustments to bring them in line with where we think they should finally sit. If vehicles have taken a step in the right direction, then maybe the steps this game is taking is entirely into the wrong direction and your all just following it like lemmings and not noticing it? Winner of the EU Squad Cup "Go Go Power Rangers!" "Accuracy"
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 4341	Posted - 2014.01.16 08:21:00 - [58] - Quote Atiim wrote: The Attorney General wrote: To whom do you think you are speaking? Have I not openly called for buffs to AV? Who amongst the AV crying circle can say the same? Where are the AV'ers who did call for nerfs when swarms or AV nades were OP? Can you find them? I doubt it very much. No, when AV was too strong, the AV group called everyone else scrubs. Yet today, you find more than just me repping the tankers saying that things need to change for AV to be more effective. I can say the same. Hi guys. Me too. I run a character specced into Scout and Logi roles with an AV secondary, and a tanker with AV skills. And I DON'T RUN A HEAVY SUIT. Light AV weapons aren't as powerful as the Forge Gun, but they're still viable when used correctly. The main problem is the lack of reward to a good AV player. Two AV guys can force three tanks to retreat and sit out almost the entire match, and be given precisely ZERO WP for doing so. You never have this problem with infantry. When vehicle damage WP shows up again, we'll be much closer to where we should be. There are still tweaks to be made, but that's the big one. Right now, if they want WP for their role, AVers need to be getting the kill, and with how AV is balanced against vehicles, that isn't always a viable approach. Pushing for the kill on a tank is how your AV guy gets killed.
Kevall Longstride DUST University Ivy League 829	Posted - 2014.01.16 08:23:00 - [59] - Quote Hans and myself have spoken a few times about Tanks 514 a couple of times now and while his analysis above is pretty much solid I still have real problems with the tanks from the viewpoint of a new player. To a new player who wants to just do infantry,Tanks are basically the God mode of Dust right now. Hans's thoughts make perfect sense to these of us who have played the game long enough but the fact of the matter is that coupled with a blink and your dead TTK, tanks are killing interest in the game for new players, long before they have the chance to appreciate any form of nuanced argument for them. While CCP will have better stats than me, I recently did some number crouching of my own and while I'm quite pleased with roughly 35% of monthly leavers from the UNI still playing the game a month later in different corps, that leaves the other 65% of monthly leavers, doing so because I've kicked them for inactivity. The average time they spent trying the game before becoming inactive is less than a day. Why? Now obviously I have no mechanic for asking all these players what's turning them off about the game but the few I've caught before leaving and the ones that stick around (just) all tell me that unless they have tanks on their side to counter them, the arrival of an opposition tank in a pub match is basically the harbinger of defeat. They feel that from that point on, they're on the losing side. And this is a real problem as far as I'm concerned. We very badly need new players in this game right now. So do CCP if they want to make money from them. And anything that's making these players leave before the game can draw them in like it has with the veterans, must be at least minimised. And if doing so 'bends' the concept of a sandbox but brings the benefit of higher new player retention then I'm all for it. The simplest way to do this is one that I think would have broad support. The elimination of tanks in ambush pub matches. Or at the very least a tank free version of the ambush mode available to players to choose. The maps must be the smaller ones, so the action is never too far away. I really do think that having such an option for new players to be able to select will go a long way to help player retention as they get more confident to try the other game modes. Beside Tanks in ambush mode are only really there for one thing anyway. Free from the obligations of objectives, they're able to pursue a high KDR with (currently) little or no threat to themselves in close combat. And while were at it, drop KDR as a stat. It proves nothing but your ability to Protostomp. I think many players would prefer an ISK per kill stat as a measure of how good you are. Mercenary Clone of Dennie Fleetfoot CEO of DUST University
Justicar Karnellia Ikomari-Onu Enforcement Caldari State 569	Posted - 2014.01.16 08:35:00 - [60] - Quote I was a bit disturbed by reading this - although Hans is spot-on about giving points out for partial vehicle damage, this is only a small part of the solution to a much bigger game mechanic - where is it logical that an AV should not be able to destroy a tank and just send him running to cover - If this is the case, and CCP want to go this route, everyone can stop posting about AV/tanks and just carry on with the zero-sum game. I posted at length about this from a tanker's point of view - but to be succinct - until the day that the more EFFICIENT, CHEAPER, SAFER option to countering a tank is another tank, then you don't need infantry AV - they are irrelevant. Counter a vehicle with a vehicle, it's cheaper in ISK, skill points, and requires little player skill AND you can also kill infantry (not to mention immunity to 90% of other infantry weapons). If they want to go this route, it would probably be wise to remove vehicle limits entirely - it would make no difference from a game mechanic point of view...

Heinrich Jagerblitzen D3LTA FORC3 1403	Posted - 2014.01.16 08:59:00 - [61] - Quote Kevall Longstride wrote: The elimination of tanks in ambush pub matches. Or at the very least a tank free version of the ambush mode available to players to choose. Nah, vehicles and OB's in ambush just need to GTFO entirely. There's no need for them whatsoever. Ambush is the simplest of game modes, the most accessible to new players coming from other games with Team DM, and Ambush should provide an initial comfort level and familiarity that eases new players into the game without overwhelming them. There's no need to split Ambush either, PCU already makes matchmaking difficult, and there's other game modes that involve all the bells and whistles. Besides, many veterans enjoy the simple pleasure of pure infantry combat, there needs to be a place where they can experience this as well.
Heinrich Jagerblitzen D3LTA FORC3 1403	Posted - 2014.01.16 09:02:00 - [62] - Quote Shion Typhon wrote: This "waves" design principle is absolutely 1000% the wrong approach, just think about how it works, if you can't see the gameplay problem of surges of invulnerability I think you should stop designing games. Saberwing isn't even the one designing the game, first of all. You're throwing your disrespect at a community manager who's trying to help. Secondly - you might try taking a moment to share a compelling argument instead of simply acting indignant. I'm listening.
ChromeBreaker SVER True Blood Public Disorder. 1504	Posted - 2014.01.16 09:11:00 - [63] - Quote Please see signature below.... Seriously tho, bump up the cost of tanks (DS and LAV's are fine), give web grenades/mines, increase swarm range, % dmg bonus to plasma cannons to vehicles. Increase mine dmg but make the detector more obvious, area denial. Then its just a learning experiance lol, wait for hardeners to finish and pummel (a vehicle weakspot...) Heinrich Jagerblitzen wrote: Kevall Longstride wrote: The elimination of tanks in ambush pub matches. Or at the very least a tank free version of the ambush mode available to players to choose. Nah, vehicles and OB's in ambush just need to GTFO entirely. There's no need for them whatsoever. Ambush is the simplest of game modes, the most accessible to new players coming from other games with Team DM, and Ambush should provide an initial comfort level and familiarity that eases new players into the game without overwhelming them. There's no need to split Ambush either, PCU already makes matchmaking difficult, and there's other game modes that involve all the bells and whistles. Besides, many veterans enjoy the simple pleasure of pure infantry combat, there needs to be a place where they can experience this as well. Id rather a choice of no tanks, then just saying to tankers "no ambush for you!!"... maybe when we get bigger maps The answer is "ForgeGun"... doesnt matter what the question is...
Amarrgheddon Warcaste 93	Posted - 2014.01.16 09:17:00 - [64] - Quote Eltra Ardell wrote: Learn to spell before you scold others. Spelling is easy. Tablets do what they want. Editing during a rant is infuriating.
Joseph Ridgeson WarRavens League of Infamy 313	Posted - 2014.01.16 09:51:00 - [65] - Quote Saberwing, if you see this, remember that big fat guy that was all "fix tanks!" in EVE Vegas and was concerned that 1.7 would make Tanks worse? Well, that was me! Yup, you got to see who the real Joseph is! In all things, I am happy with how Tanks are now. Please thank the design team for making Tanks control feel smooth and elegant. They handle so damn nice now. I am also not getting stuck on stuff so if the poopoo hits the fan, I can GTFO and live to fight another day. A few things probably need to change (Militia Tanks should probably be made weaker as they are so much free power, certain AV weaponry needs to have a damage increase) but the two of the three most important things have already happened. Tank controlling is smooth and bumps in the road don't cause Shields to just explode. Module Wheel is still finicky though but it is less important now that there aren't 5 modules to use at a time. Thanks for being a good ambassador between us jerks on the forums and the developers. Now that my apple polishing is out of the way, I will address one of the things that seem to be talked about: Balancing Tanks around price is a bad idea. I have 100 million isk. I always called in a Tank when my Tank was 700k and I always call in a Tank now that it is 240ish. Lil' Johnny with his 3 million isk but his 4 million SP couldn't possible afford that. Having the cash to call in Tanks has very little to do with skill. Sure, if you are more skilled you will lose less Tanks and be more cash efficient but if you can't afford to learn, you can't afford to play. Be well. -Joseph
jerrmy12 kahoalii The Phoenix Federation 386	Posted - 2014.01.16 10:00:00 - [66] - Quote Joseph Ridgeson wrote: Saberwing, if you see this, remember that big fat guy that was all "fix tanks!" in EVE Vegas and was concerned that 1.7 would make Tanks worse? Well, that was me! Yup, you got to see who the real Joseph is! In all things, I am happy with how Tanks are now. Please thank the design team for making Tanks control feel smooth and elegant. They handle so damn nice now. I am also not getting stuck on stuff so if the poopoo hits the fan, I can GTFO and live to fight another day. A few things probably need to change (Militia Tanks should probably be made weaker as they are so much free power, certain AV weaponry needs to have a damage increase) but the two of the three most important things have already happened. Tank controlling is smooth and bumps in the road don't cause Shields to just explode. Module Wheel is still finicky though but it is less important now that there aren't 5 modules to use at a time. Thanks for being a good ambassador between us jerks on the forums and the developers. Now that my apple polishing is out of the way, I will address one of the things that seem to be talked about: Balancing Tanks around price is a bad idea. I have 100 million isk. I always called in a Tank when my Tank was 700k and I always call in a Tank now that it is 240ish. Lil' Johnny with his 3 million isk but his 4 million SP couldn't possible afford that. Having the cash to call in Tanks has very little to do with skill. Sure, if you are more skilled you will lose less Tanks and be more cash efficient but if you can't afford to learn, you can't afford to play. Be well. -Joseph Madrugar turn a bit too slow and the gunlogi needs a very slight speed buff and the dropships need more climbingmspeed Closed beta vet I use a tablet so beware of typos
Aeon Amadi Ancient Exiles. Renegade Alliance 4644	Posted - 2014.01.16 10:35:00 - [67] - Quote Heinrich Jagerblitzen wrote: Kevall Longstride wrote: The elimination of tanks in ambush pub matches. Or at the very least a tank free version of the ambush mode available to players to choose. Nah, vehicles and OB's in ambush just need to GTFO entirely. There's no need for them whatsoever. Ambush is the simplest of game modes, the most accessible to new players coming from other games with Team DM, and Ambush should provide an initial comfort level and familiarity that eases new players into the game without overwhelming them. There's no need to split Ambush either, PCU already makes matchmaking difficult, and there's other game modes that involve all the bells and whistles. Besides, many veterans enjoy the simple pleasure of pure infantry combat, there needs to be a place where they can experience this as well. Can agree to this. If anything they need to reduce the vehicle quota for Ambush since it is, in fact, higher than the other game modes as I describe here: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1726831#post1726831 And while it is anecdotal evidence.....: http://i.imgur.com/h8aiKt3.jpg Useful Links //forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=133588 //forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=134182
Jacques Cayton II Fatal Absolution Covert Intervention 540	Posted - 2014.01.16 10:46:00 - [68] - Quote X7 lion wrote: Prius Vecht wrote: b) They are too fast. Faster than infantry is no problem but right now they're sportscar fast. c) You can't cripple them. Vehicles with less than half of its total health should be moving at 1/4 of normal speed. d) The enter/exit animation is a glitch. lets do away with teleporting in and out of vehicles and add actual animations that people cant take advantage of in a gunfight or to abandon a tank about to explode. Especially mr pop-out-in-an-instant Heavy in his LAV. e) The modules repair way too fast. going from crippled to full health in a split second? No Way. The increase should be gradual. f) Too many AV weapons are crap. The plasma cannon has a silly firing arc and doesn't do nearly enough damage for a weapon that reloads after every shot. Prox mines dont do enough damage (they should start @ 2000 per) and every vehicle has a mine detector. Shouldnt that be a module? REs should stick to tanks. g) You can recall them in an instant. No vehicle should be recalled if its damaged and they should have to wait on the RDV just like when theyre dropped off. No teleporting. Recalling cant be an exploit to get your tank out of harm's way when things go badly. h) AV was tuned badly. Swarms were taken down too much and AV grenades were too. Forges are the direct counter to vehicles and the hits should be devastating to them. Reduce grenade spam by making people equip grenades and then throw them with R1. just for the record a modern tank max speed is about 65 km/h & these are future tanks so thats just abit of bitching with out a solution offered, maybe change up the way the move and are controlled. plasma cannon isnt av its anti material "good for dealing with groups of peope" (if it wasnt a broken pile of arse) you cant recall damaged vehicles but you a few hundred hp is more then a drop suit witch over a surface area of a tank is recoverable. swarms distance was nerf'd to make them a defense weapon, as apossed to i sit far away from you and fire i win tracking missile at you. tank pricing may need to be looked at but most importantly ITS A TANK ITS NOT MENT TO BE KILLED BY ONE GUY cough unless its a **** tank and good av but ya know.... 1 the us main battle tank m1 Abrahams only runs for 4 hours roughly in full performance so does that mean these future tanks should stop after a set time based on performance based on your idea it would be yes but it's a game and if you make something fast and hard hitting with a god mode it's op. Imagine a heavy with these abilities and realize how dumb you just sounded. 2 plc is anti material that's correct but the forge gun is also anti material so that's invalid 3 one guy with a javelin can take down any tank. Swarms = javelin. Yes javelin teams consist of two guys but that's for ammo purposes. So technically one guy can take down a tank oh also their's c4. You ever see 3 pounds of c4 go off? It's a big blast. We fight for the future of the State not our personal goals
Aero Yassavi Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 5171	Posted - 2014.01.16 10:54:00 - [69] - Quote Just for the record, making comparisons to real life or starting an argument with "this is the future so . . ." really doesn't hold much weight. In real life, things are designed to be over powered, why wouldn't they if they could? It's not like you have to listen to the enemy on forums QQing about your tanks and demanding them get nerfed. This is a game, but it is not a simulator. There needs to be a balance of powers. ARC Commander CPM Info and Q&A - Status: Open
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 1665	Posted - 2014.01.16 10:58:00 - [70] - Quote Justicar Karnellia wrote: If I recall correctly, they already acknowledged there is a problem and will fix it - the "when" will be the interesting part. some of the solutions are so basic they could be hotfixed really - and they do have a history of hotfixing out of patch cycles... the TAC AR comes to mind... There is a problem, and it's infantry wanting vehicles to be useless and/or removed from the game. 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. 1665	Posted - 2014.01.16 11:01:00 - [71] - Quote Prius Vecht wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Prius Vecht wrote: Only the most tanker homer guys and lovers of 'I win' buttons can defend the current state of tank dominance. CCP u guys are apparently looking at the metrics and are aware of the problems. What vehicle issues are you looking to resolve in 1.8? the vehicle issues as I see them are: a) Tanks dont cost nearly enough compared to their raw power. A tank should be 3x the cost of a proto suit if its going to be anywhere near as powerful as they are now. Probably true, I like that I can lose one and not go negative for the next 6 matches. I'd up the price but not to the insane levels it was at before. b) They are too fast. Faster than infantry is no problem but right now they're sportscar fast. Going to disagree on this one, I think they're sufficiently fast considering some of the dowsides. For example Caldari HAVs are significantly slower than Armor, and Armor HAVs have a **** ass turning radius. c) You can't cripple them. Vehicles with less than half of its total health should be moving at 1/4 of normal speed. I'd be ok with something like this, but a 75% reduction to speed is excessive. I think it would be much better to give infantry the means to forcefully slow a tank down, but not have it tied to total damage. d) The enter/exit animation is a glitch. lets do away with teleporting in and out of vehicles and add actual animations that people cant take advantage of in a gunfight or to abandon a tank about to explode. Especially mr pop-out-in-an-instant Heavy in his LAV. Who gives a if you kill the pilot or not? I always go down with my tank unless I know I can hop out and finish off an enemy tank on foot. Destroying the tank is sufficient though, you've removed the immediate threat. e) The modules repair way too fast. going from crippled to full health in a split second? No Way. The increase should be gradual. You must be referring to Shield Boosters. Remember that shield boosters can only be used once in a while due to large cooldowns, and that the slow regeneration of an armor repairer is actually better in terms of total HP regenerated in the long run. f) Too many AV weapons are crap. The plasma cannon has a silly firing arc and doesn't do nearly enough damage for a weapon that reloads after every shot. Prox mines dont do enough damage (they should start @ 2000 per) and every vehicle has a mine detector. Shouldnt that be a module? REs should stick to tanks. Plasma Cannon needs a lot of work. Swarm Damage is fine but give it some more range. Forges are still highly effective with proper positioning. Remotes do stick to tanks as well as any other vehicle. AVers need to be less focused on asking for more damage, and more focused on asking for more tools to assist in vehicle destruction. Webifiers would be a good start. g) You can recall them in an instant. No vehicle should be recalled if its damaged and they should have to wait on the RDV just like when theyre dropped off. No teleporting. Recalling cant be an exploit to get your tank out of harm's way when things go badly. You can't recall a vehicle that is critically damage (on fire). Also in many cases I will fit a shield HAV with armor plates as part of a buffer, but with no way to repair it. Should I be penalized if I want to switch turrets, solely because my fit chooses to use armor that can't be repaired normally? The No-Recall if a vehicle has any damage is just not a good idea. I'm find with critical damage, but ANY damage? No. As for an RDV coming to actually pick the vehicle up? That's reasonable. h) AV was tuned badly. Swarms were taken down too much and AV grenades were too. Forges are the direct counter to vehicles and the hits should be devastating to them. Reduce grenade spam by making people equip grenades and then throw them with R1. AV Grenades were out of control before, you could easily solo a tank using them. Swarm damage is much more reasonable now, but the range nerf should be reduced. Forge guns are devastating, especially Assault Forges. Use elevation! I ** my pants when I feel an assault forge hitting me from up high. How much did tanks cost before? forgive me i'm not a tanker. OAN: the issues with instant exit/entering should be obvious. Easily one of the most abused mechanics in the game. Webs would be nice, but the AV that its in the game has to work first. Plasma Launcher/Prox Mines are both crap. The top turrets of all variants used to cost almost a million ISK each. Made a really good tank cost 1.2mil ISK at the very least. How would you like to lose out on that much ISK each death? 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 3530	Posted - 2014.01.16 11:17:00 - [72] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: There is a problem, and it's infantry wanting vehicles to be useless and/or removed from the game. Has anyone here ever said that they want vehicles removed and/or useless? Creator of The AV Registry The Pilot's Whipin' Boy // DJINN Lukeoplast's alleged sock *FORGE MASTER RACE*
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 1665	Posted - 2014.01.16 11:18:00 - [73] - Quote Rynoceros wrote: Loki Patera wrote: Got a problem with tanks? Call in a missile or railgun tank. Problem solved. Got a problem with infantry? Get a rifle and some skills. Problem solved. Or, be a little FotM *** and get a splashy Railgun or Missile Turret and 3000+ HP with instant reppers and outrun even the fastest Scout. (***** scrubs.) You know, not everybody wants to be an infantryman, running around like a chicken without a head, looking for the next kill, not even counting on the next guy to hack the objective, because it seems like most people that complain about individual encounters with tanks only play ambush, and nothing else. We don't care about the status quo infantry has for this game, which is the hope that it will become 100% infantry. Suck it up and deal with it, or find another game to play. We can't be reasonable with you. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Monkey MAC Lost Millennium 1586	Posted - 2014.01.16 11:34:00 - [74] - Quote Shion Typhon wrote: CCP Saberwing wrote: General consensus between ourselves and the CPM appears to be that - Vehicles have taken a step in the right direction Really? Seriously? This "waves" design principle is absolutely 1000% the wrong approach, just think about how it works, if you can't see the gameplay problem of surges of invulnerability I think you should stop designing games. Who said invulnerability? That's the point, the current version of the waves of opportunity is a step in the right direction, it just means the waves need to become more of an oppurtunity. And less of death Tanks 514 I told you, I bloody well told you. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
The dark cloud The Rainbow Effect 2067	Posted - 2014.01.16 11:36:00 - [75] - Quote Did any 1 even had a read about my post? Or do we want to keep going on with the current meta? The issue is not that AV doesnt do enough damage. The problem is that they cant apply their damage properly due to the high mobility on vehicles. Allow passangers to use all weapons/equipment and you change the whole AV mechanics without changing stats on vehicles nor AV. Just have a look at what we have: -LAV's cant even be destroyed with a proto assault forgegun. They usually surive with a tiny bit of HP which means you have to chase them which is as AV infantry next to impossible (except its open ground and you get 2 swarms off) -dropships (assaults) are very quick and swarms do less damage against them. A proper fitted incubus with passive tank will require at least 3 proto forgegun hits in a row to take it down. Plus it can outrun swarms with a afterburner. -tanks can soak up quite alot of damage when a hardener is running. knowing that they can still drive off very quickly leaving the AV infantry behind without a chance to finish him. What usually follows is that he hides for like 10 secs and has full HP again. Consistant damage application is needed otherwise you dont even need to shot it. So knowing that you could combine the mobility of a dropship+LAV to keep chasing a tank. While the passanger can fire his AV weapon from the passanger seat. This would require at least 2 people to work together (driver and AV) and tankers cant say that they get "soloed". I shall show you a world, a world which you cant imagine, a world full off butthurt n00bs at the other end of my gun
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 3530	Posted - 2014.01.16 11:38:00 - [76] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: You know, not everybody wants to be an infantryman, running around like a chicken without a head, looking for the next kill, not even counting on the next guy to hack the objective, because it seems like most people that complain about individual encounters with tanks only play ambush, and nothing else. We don't care about the status quo infantry has for this game, which is the hope that it will become 100% infantry. I haven't played Ambush in the past 6 months. Your argument (or lack thereof) is invalid. People who complain about individual counters complain about them because it only takes one individual to pilot a tank, making AV ineffective at AV; and making the best counter another tank. Which brings me to my 3rd point. Not everyone wants to be a tanker, driving around in an "ez-mode" steel box, just to hunt down other tanks, because it seems like most people who think they should be better at AV because they are in a tank only play Skirmish, nothing else. Nobody cares about the status quo pilots have for this game, which is the hope that AV is removed or requires a ridiculous amount of people to destroy a tank. Spkr4theDead wrote: Suck it up and deal with it, or find another game to play. We can't be reasonable with you. That's hilarious coming from you. I thought it was funny hearing Flix Keptix say that. Now all we need is your boyfriend Tankahiro to say this and I'll finally be able to bring about my "Red Star Conspiracy" Creator of The AV Registry The Pilot's Whipin' Boy // DJINN Lukeoplast's alleged sock *FORGE MASTER RACE*
Monkey MAC Lost Millennium 1586	Posted - 2014.01.16 11:42:00 - [77] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Rynoceros wrote: Loki Patera wrote: Got a problem with tanks? Call in a missile or railgun tank. Problem solved. Got a problem with infantry? Get a rifle and some skills. Problem solved. Or, be a little FotM *** and get a splashy Railgun or Missile Turret and 3000+ HP with instant reppers and outrun even the fastest Scout. (***** scrubs.) You know, not everybody wants to be an infantryman, running around like a chicken without a head, looking for the next kill, not even counting on the next guy to hack the objective, because it seems like most people that complain about individual encounters with tanks only play ambush, and nothing else. We don't care about the status quo infantry has for this game, which is the hope that it will become 100% infantry. Suck it up and deal with it, or find another game to play. We can't be reasonable with you. You can't be reasonable with us? You have a vehicle which is no more expensive than my suit, (which is a good thing), has 1000s of EHP, is invunerable to all but SPECALIST infantry weapons, is highly mobile across multiple terrain types and comes with a weapon 100s of times better than that off infantry, yet we are unreasonable when we think it fair that AV should suppress/destroy a tank with a similar effort to the tanker. Please, for the love of God, why don't you play a role where you don't kill people, you will be much less upset when you can't do it. Tanks 514 I told you, I bloody well told you. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
Obodiah Garro Tech Guard RISE of LEGION 519	Posted - 2014.01.16 11:57:00 - [78] - Quote all of the OPs points are spot on, especially fond of the 1/4 speed at 1/4 damage right now tanks are just too damn fast. Also return the swarm launcher to pre hyper nerf levels, **** boost it beyond what it was before the nerf Dust is a joke atm.
Shion Typhon Intara Direct Action Caldari State 368	Posted - 2014.01.16 11:58:00 - [79] - Quote Heinrich Jagerblitzen wrote: Shion Typhon wrote: This "waves" design principle is absolutely 1000% the wrong approach, just think about how it works, if you can't see the gameplay problem of surges of invulnerability I think you should stop designing games. Saberwing isn't even the one designing the game, first of all. You're throwing your disrespect at a community manager who's trying to help. Secondly - you might try taking a moment to share a compelling argument instead of simply acting indignant. I'm listening. To make a very long argument very short it essentially boils down to this. Where the main point of player interaction occurs, "the fight", the person with the invulnerability is the controller. Its like any other get-out-of-jail-free card type ability in games, such as invisibility or super speed. So when you fight, the tanker is not required to engage skill, only press a button, the choice for the AVer isn't to engage his skill, its to hide until the invulnerability wears off. So basically at the peak point where you want the players testing themselves against one another, the natural strategy is to disengage rather than fight. Both sides get less out of the combat than they otherwise would. There's more to it than that re the binary tanking model vs an attrition model but that's one of the big elements. Notice how in TF2 they didn't give the invincibility to the Heavy, they gave it to the medic instead who applies it to the heavy and is vulnerable himself? Think about the different dynamic that creates in the actual combat itself. They should have gone down the route (simplistically speaking) giving vehicles 1/100 the regen and 10x the HP.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 1665	Posted - 2014.01.16 12:20:00 - [80] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Rynoceros wrote: Loki Patera wrote: Got a problem with tanks? Call in a missile or railgun tank. Problem solved. Got a problem with infantry? Get a rifle and some skills. Problem solved. Or, be a little FotM *** and get a splashy Railgun or Missile Turret and 3000+ HP with instant reppers and outrun even the fastest Scout. (***** scrubs.) You know, not everybody wants to be an infantryman, running around like a chicken without a head, looking for the next kill, not even counting on the next guy to hack the objective, because it seems like most people that complain about individual encounters with tanks only play ambush, and nothing else. We don't care about the status quo infantry has for this game, which is the hope that it will become 100% infantry. Suck it up and deal with it, or find another game to play. We can't be reasonable with you. You can't be reasonable with us? You have a vehicle which is no more expensive than my suit, (which is a good thing), has 1000s of EHP, is invunerable to all but SPECALIST infantry weapons, is highly mobile across multiple terrain types and comes with a weapon 100s of times better than that off infantry, yet we are unreasonable when we think it fair that AV should suppress/destroy a tank with a similar effort to the tanker. Please, for the love of God, why don't you play a role where you don't kill people, you will be much less upset when you can't do it. Have you done the math to put a tank together? 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. 1665	Posted - 2014.01.16 12:21:00 - [81] - Quote Atiim wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: You know, not everybody wants to be an infantryman, running around like a chicken without a head, looking for the next kill, not even counting on the next guy to hack the objective, because it seems like most people that complain about individual encounters with tanks only play ambush, and nothing else. We don't care about the status quo infantry has for this game, which is the hope that it will become 100% infantry. I haven't played Ambush in the past 6 months. Your argument (or lack thereof) is invalid. People who complain about individual counters complain about them because it only takes one individual to pilot a tank, making AV ineffective at AV; and making the best counter another tank. Which brings me to my 3rd point. Not everyone wants to be a tanker, driving around in an "ez-mode" steel box, just to hunt down other tanks, because it seems like most people who think they should be better at AV because they are in a tank only play Skirmish, nothing else. Nobody cares about the status quo pilots have for this game, which is the hope that AV is removed or requires a ridiculous amount of people to destroy a tank. Spkr4theDead wrote: Suck it up and deal with it, or find another game to play. We can't be reasonable with you. That's hilarious coming from you. I thought it was funny hearing Flix Keptix say that. Now all we need is your boyfriend Tankahiro to say this and I'll finally be able to bring about my "Red Star Conspiracy" I thought having an endocrine disease that's ruining my life and causing me to have crappy sleep patterns, such as being awake now was bad, but damn, you're on the forums 24/7, aren't you. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
843-BANE BurgezzE.T.F Public Disorder. 307	Posted - 2014.01.16 12:33:00 - [82] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Atiim wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: You know, not everybody wants to be an infantryman, running around like a chicken without a head, looking for the next kill, not even counting on the next guy to hack the objective, because it seems like most people that complain about individual encounters with tanks only play ambush, and nothing else. We don't care about the status quo infantry has for this game, which is the hope that it will become 100% infantry. I haven't played Ambush in the past 6 months. Your argument (or lack thereof) is invalid. People who complain about individual counters complain about them because it only takes one individual to pilot a tank, making AV ineffective at AV; and making the best counter another tank. Which brings me to my 3rd point. Not everyone wants to be a tanker, driving around in an "ez-mode" steel box, just to hunt down other tanks, because it seems like most people who think they should be better at AV because they are in a tank only play Skirmish, nothing else. Nobody cares about the status quo pilots have for this game, which is the hope that AV is removed or requires a ridiculous amount of people to destroy a tank. Spkr4theDead wrote: Suck it up and deal with it, or find another game to play. We can't be reasonable with you. That's hilarious coming from you. I thought it was funny hearing Flix Keptix say that. Now all we need is your boyfriend Tankahiro to say this and I'll finally be able to bring about my "Red Star Conspiracy" I thought having an endocrine disease that's ruining my life and causing me to have crappy sleep patterns, such as being awake now was bad, but damn, you're on the forums 24/7, aren't you. Why would you bring real life health problems into Dust forums? Are you looking for pity or trying to guilt trip him? Director // Ranking Officer // BurgezzE.T.F Patron of War \| GPæGPìGPî
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 466	Posted - 2014.01.16 12:41:00 - [83] - Quote Prius Vecht wrote: Only the most tanker homer guys and lovers of 'I win' buttons can defend the current state of tank dominance. CCP u guys are apparently looking at the metrics and are aware of the problems. What vehicle issues are you looking to resolve in 1.8? the vehicle issues as I see them are: a) Tanks dont cost nearly enough compared to their raw power. A tank should be 3x the cost of a proto suit if its going to be anywhere near as powerful as they are now. b) They are too fast. Faster than infantry is no problem but right now they're sportscar fast. c) You can't cripple them. Vehicles with less than half of its total health should be moving at 1/4 of normal speed. d) The enter/exit animation is a glitch. lets do away with teleporting in and out of vehicles and add actual animations that people cant take advantage of in a gunfight or to abandon a tank about to explode. Especially mr pop-out-in-an-instant Heavy in his LAV. e) The modules repair way too fast. going from crippled to full health in a split second? No Way. The increase should be gradual. f) Too many AV weapons are crap. The plasma cannon has a silly firing arc and doesn't do nearly enough damage for a weapon that reloads after every shot. Prox mines dont do enough damage (they should start @ 2000 per) and every vehicle has a mine detector. Shouldnt that be a module? REs should stick to tanks. g) You can recall them in an instant. No vehicle should be recalled if its damaged and they should have to wait on the RDV just like when theyre dropped off. No teleporting. Recalling cant be an exploit to get your tank out of harm's way when things go badly. h) AV was tuned badly. Swarms were taken down too much and AV grenades were too. Forges are the direct counter to vehicles and the hits should be devastating to them. Reduce grenade spam by making people equip grenades and then throw them with R1. Tanks should cost less than proto suits, that much is obvious. Why? Proto suits are NEVER supposed to be profitable, they're the "I wanna punch someone in the face" suits of the game, and the STD and ADV suits are the ones that should allow earning currency. Currently the tank population makes it so "You wanna pull out that PRO suit? Fine, but you're not gonna make a profit this round!" And frankly it's mostly Proto suit spammers who claim tanks are ruining the fields... STD and ADV users apparently have no issue with tanks cause they can still make profit if they run into one. AV on basic suits, or calling in your own tanks are more than adequate to take out other tanks.. Speed is only an issue if you're one of those idiots who runs after a tank and tries to kill it every engagement. The people who sit back and know how to deter tanks and deny huge areas of terrain to the tanks are a lot smarter than the dirt runners. AV weaponry does need to be looked at, but as long as there is an abundance of ways to pursue AV, the cheaper and easier ways should always be weaker, while the specialized ways, such as Forge guns should be the strongest ranged AV ground units have. The vehicle recall has always been in development and an RDV was always planned to pick the vehicle up, but current pathing disallows reliable pickups as of yet... or something of that matter. AV grenades and Swarms can be used by the same person at the same time. Weaponry that does the aiming for you should obviously have reduced power. If you can read this, it means you are reading. Unless you are skimming
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 2185	Posted - 2014.01.16 13:26:00 - [84] - Quote Heinrich Jagerblitzen wrote: Stuff... As the author of the Swarm Launcher Guide, and a long time participant in the Vehicle/AV debate, as well as a current Forge Gun user, I totally agree with your assessment. While balance seems way off, the foundation of the Vehicle/AV system seems more solid in 1.7. Some small tweaks would make a big difference in the balance. I think the Swarm Launcher and AV Grenades getting over nerfed is probably the biggest factor. Most people run Medium Frame suits, and they do not have access to effective AV weapons any more. The Forge Gun seems to be fairly well balanced right now, so I think we should use it as the bench mark when balancing other AV weapons. The effectiveness of Swarms Launchers need to approach the current effectiveness of Forge Guns more closely. Of course these weapons are very different so you canGÇÖt compare them on DPS alone. So I favour a small buff to Swarm Launchers, and then an assessment of the impact of that buff before considering a second small adjustment. I have been thinking: +30 Damage per missel = 250 Damage (Down from 330 in 1.6) +25m range = 200m (Down from 400 in 1.6) The most fun I had with Swarm Launchers was in 1.0 and 1.1 having duels with blaster tanks from within their range where I was using cover to avoid their fire and then popping out at unexpected places and trying to get a shot off and get back behind cover before getting riddled by the Blaster. That was before the Swarm Launcher was buffed twice and became completely overpowered. I think the range nerf will actually make the Swarm Launcher more fun once they are made a bit more effective. The lock-on time made the challenge of using it to survive while getting the lock, rather than aiming skill, and getting the lock from a sniper nest was not too much of a challenge. Fox Gaden: DUST Wall of Fame, 2014
poison Diego NECROM0NGERS The CORVOS 287	Posted - 2014.01.16 13:26:00 - [85] - Quote the tanks speed has been crippled enough. the base speed is definitely not hard to deal with and the nitrus is useless unless its complex. its not hard to take out tanks, use teamwork and tanks wont stand for long. railguns are broken and everyone knows it, nerf damage by 25% and RoF by 15% and everyone is happy SUCK ON MY BIG BLACK BASIC BLASTER WELCOME TO WORLDofTANKz514 put your seatbelts on, ITs GONNA BE A BUMPY RIDE!!
Reiki Jubo Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 241	Posted - 2014.01.16 13:35:00 - [86] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Webs would be nice, but the AV that its in the game has to work first. Plasma Launcher/Prox Mines are both crap. The top turrets of all variants used to cost almost a million ISK each. Made a really good tank cost 1.2mil ISK at the very least. How would you like to lose out on that much ISK each death?[/quote] agree that PL and PMs need heavy tuning, but ur complaining about tank cost is irrelevant. In this game u pay for items with killing power/resistance and the tank is at the top of the food chain in both regards. Their cost should be significant higher than any protosuit...if u dont like that kindly refer to eves 'dont fly what you cant afford to lose' philosophy.
Bones McGavins TacoCat Industries 411	Posted - 2014.01.16 13:49:00 - [87] - Quote Anyone who simply says "use teamwork" has clearly never encountered tankers doing the same. A squad with a couple tankers will roll the squad with none. If you need to dedicate half your squad to AV to take out one tank, that tanker now has squadmates free to 2:1 your non AV then mop up the AV. I kill a lot of idiots with my pistol when AV but any decent players would destroy me due to my lack of range. And even the idiots usually distract me long enough for the tanks to escape. Also, chasing off tanks all day isn't fun. Sorry but I want kills. Even WP won't make it much better unless the WP is significant enough to earn me a solo orbita like infantry play would. Finally I have hopped in militia tanks to see what I'm up against. I literally started laughing my ass off at how useless swarms are. With harderner on I literally outrepped and off I could just ignore them. Only other tanks have ever killed me while my blaster destroys AV. And I'm a complete skill less noob in a tank.
poison Diego NECROM0NGERS The CORVOS 287	Posted - 2014.01.16 14:03:00 - [88] - Quote Bones McGavins wrote: Anyone who simply says "use teamwork" has clearly never encountered tankers doing the same. A squad with a couple tankers will roll the squad with none. If you need to dedicate half your squad to AV to take out one tank, that tanker now has squadmates free to 2:1 your non AV then mop up the AV. I kill a lot of idiots with my pistol when AV but any decent players would destroy me due to my lack of range. And even the idiots usually distract me long enough for the tanks to escape. Also, chasing off tanks all day isn't fun. Sorry but I want kills. Even WP won't make it much better unless the WP is significant enough to earn me a solo orbita like infantry play would. Finally I have hopped in militia tanks to see what I'm up against. I literally started laughing my ass off at how useless swarms are. With harderner on I literally outrepped and off I could just ignore them. Only other tanks have ever killed me while my blaster destroys AV. And I'm a complete skill less noob in a tank. thats why we want prize raised by at least 50% YES MILITIA TO!!! then if you take out a tank he wont be so eager to call in another one , SUCK ON MY BIG BLACK BASIC BLASTER WELCOME TO WORLDofTANKz514 put your seatbelts on, ITs GONNA BE A BUMPY RIDE!!
Prius Vecht Red and Silver Hand Amarr Empire 199	Posted - 2014.01.16 14:03:00 - [89] - Quote I appreciate all the well thought out responses from posters and CPM Jagerblitzen, I tried to list my issues under the premise that any counters would have to come from mechanics in the game. I would love, webifiers but its my opinion that the current tank issue is as bad as any we've seen previously a la early Swarms, The TAC AR and Flaylock......IMO it needs a hotfix and so I tried to use available gameplay rather than features that can be added in at a later date. The few responses defending tank cost seem odd, I would ask those people if u first thought before typing or were you simply defending a mechanic that is FAR into your favor? You spend ISK for value in this game...as such, I cant think of anything that should be more expensive in the marketplace at the moment than the HAV. I also scratched my head regarding the mine detectors that are included into every vehicle. No other weapon system in this game has any kind of alert. Area Denial is fine but vehicles have the option to scan, so theres ur detector right there. Adding a beeping sound is overkill, want a detector? spend the ISK/CPU/PG on a module. The suggestions about allowing mercs to fire from LAVs and dropships was also very good...and WP for damage to vehicles really could be a game changer. My last point would be regarding the Plasma Launcher. CPM Jagerblitzen detailed the skill/damage discrepancy perfectly. I think CCP should scrap the firing arc and utilize the same straight-line ADS that the Forge has. With that, I think that its a no brainer that the damage should also increase.
TheWee BabySeamus Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance 86	Posted - 2014.01.16 14:13:00 - [90] - Quote CCP Saberwing wrote: Really digging Hans' post further above. I refrained from commenting previously because I wanted to discuss things through with CPM members. I'll make sure the relevant Design guys see this thread. General consensus between ourselves and the CPM appears to be that - Vehicles have taken a step in the right direction but we will be looking to make some additional adjustments to bring them in line with where we think they should finally sit. Bring Av back to what it was pre 1.7 Wee Baby Seamus-------------->DDB Director & #1 Sex chat operator

Assault Chileanme Molon Labe. Public Disorder. 30	Posted - 2014.01.16 14:51:00 - [91] - Quote I agree with Fox and others that the whole dynamic seems pretty balanced now in theory. The main problems that I see are the ability for tanks to fit multiple hardeners with no penalty, and the uselessness of Swarms and AV Grenades. I think a lot of the current problems with tanks would be solved if they had more risk with engaging in close quarters combat (disregarding the issues with rail tanks). I don't know exactly what the solution is, but I know that having perma-hardened tanks is detrimental. Buffing AV grenades to be a scary weapon would also help with this I think, although perhaps with a slight range nerf to keep them from being as overpowered and versatile as they were previously. If a tank gets close enough to be withing grenade range then they should be punished for it.
Daxxis KANNAH Distinct Covert Initiative 659	Posted - 2014.01.16 15:07:00 - [92] - Quote @Heinrich Jagerblitzen If the push is for vehicles to continue on the path that they are on then the one thing IMO that needs to change immediately is the tacnet scanning of them. If vehicles should force a rethink of strategy to handle them then mercs shouldnt have ninja tanks / dropships killing them. Many times they cant be seen until too late and the vehicle noise seems to be all around and not coming from the direction of the vehicle. When you add in the fact that they are faster and you have limited stamina A merc should not have to be within a short distance to passively scan a vehicle. The same way neutral installations can be picked up from further out, enemy vehicles need to be picked up, at least HAV's and DS'. Persons better than I can come up with the suggested distances. Also on the scout speed - is it both movement speed and sprint speed causing the issue or one of them? Clarification on some of these things would be nice so forumers dont spend too much effort on speculation and fact checking of others' posts etc. Loved your write ups. In your blind spot No Quid Pro Quo Line in the Sand
Vrain Matari Mikramurka Shock Troop Minmatar Republic 1460	Posted - 2014.01.16 15:37:00 - [93] - Quote The bare bones of the system are now in place. But it is a touchy system to balance because it revolves around infantry vs. vehicle velocties, the duty cycle of active hardeners and weapon ranges - the balance will always be a dynamic balance(as opposed to a static balance that would come from a big hitpoint pool. Shion Typhon gave us a very good, probably prescient, post on this a while back). My biggest concern with a dynamically balanced system is that once balanced it is very easy to unbalance it again with seemingly inconsequential and unrelated changes to other game mechanics. It also means certain stats of vehicles and infantry will be forever linked, constraining game designers in the future. But if we're going to go with the 'waves of opportunity' model for vehicles then we should go all in. In that spirit, achieving balance at this point should be confined to two variables: Active hardener duty cycle, and the vehicle/infantry speed ratio(Black Cloud addresses this point with his LAV suggestion above). It will be counterproductive to try and balance other aspects(e.g. damage, sensors, etc.) of vehicle vs. vehicle/vehicle vs. infantry combat until these two fundamental variables, duty cycle & relative velocities, are properly calibrated for True Grit's 'Waves of Opportunity' model. I support SP rollover.
Nothing Certain Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 23	Posted - 2014.01.16 16:28:00 - [94] - Quote The one thing I see missing in most of these discussions is the role of turret installations. If tanks should be hard to destroy, hardened permanent gun emplacements should be nearly indestructible. Right now they are the easiest things to destroy in the whole game and give a huge reward for zero risk. Turrets make a great tank deterrent when they are active, and can be accessed by those not skilled into AV. I think they should play a larger role in the game. I think they should be indestructible but capable of being disabled, this would allow infantry to engage tanks, but only in certain areas but allows tanks to disable them but not able to ignore them after that, their will be a constant struggle for control of the turrets, which I think makes for good gameplay. Other than that, what other posters have said, hardeners and escapability are the main problems and no WP for AV work unless their is a kill. Even then it is limited considering the teamwork that is necessary.
Knox Firmus SCIENCE FOR LIFE 5	Posted - 2014.01.16 16:41:00 - [95] - Quote Kevall Longstride wrote: The simplest way to do this is one that I think would have broad support. The elimination of tanks in ambush pub matches. Or at the very least a tank free version of the ambush mode available to players to choose. The maps must be the smaller ones, so the action is never too far away. I really do think that having such an option for new players to be able to select will go a long way to help player retention as they get more confident to try the other game modes. This. Is a good idea. And hell, it fits with EVE to a degree. you can't bring cap ships into high-sec. and isn't that what a tank very nearly represents on a battlefield of infantry? Overall, Dust dearly needs some more friendly newbie modes. This seems like a good option.
wripple WarRavens League of Infamy 113	Posted - 2014.01.16 16:48:00 - [96] - Quote Cody Sietz wrote: The problem with vehicle recall is that it works too well. Especially shield tanks, since most of the time they can recall cause the shields are just about up. I think not letting you recall while your modules are still in cool down or active. That really is the easiest fix. Edit: also, I'm fine with range we have not. But the dmg is just crap. If a Dropship get close enough I can hit him and make him run, but I shouldn't be able to him once he goes far enough away. Same goes for tanks, I should be able to sit on a tower and blow them up. As a derpship tryhard myself, I can tell you firsthand that swarms don't deal nearly enough damage. Wyirkomys that used to make me cry just tickle my shields now, forge and rail tanks are the only thing to take me down these days. (Unless I get blindsided by a blaster turret, since shield boosters are broken and instantly deactivate under fire) I second the recall idea too, I can't tell you how many somas have gotten away because the punk wussed out and recalled at half armor. And if tanks are to be slower then I think they should get a sentry mode, where they cannot move but have a longer range, zoom and can aim straight up. If you've ever chased a sica with a python you know it's a very one sided battle. Also, I've come to the conclusion that about 10-12% of this game's player base now consists of redline sica drivers, after 4 weeks with at least one-two on each side every game it's clear what the new FOTM is.
Dalmont Legrand 237	Posted - 2014.01.16 16:52:00 - [97] - Quote https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=136214&find=unread Of something nothing is everything.
Bones McGavins TacoCat Industries 413	Posted - 2014.01.16 16:56:00 - [98] - Quote Redline issues also factor in. The one very small Dom map with the null cannon in the open surrounded by hills? The redline is like 200 m from the objective. Tanks can retreat over the redline behind a hill or two with no way for infantry to engage. Then just roll forward a bit and be in range to defend / engage the objective. I've only quit out of one match due to tanks, and it was this map. One scrub tanker and one solid one just dominated the entire game. Wgen I left the good tanker was like 40-0. Also we need a solid AV with a shield focus. Plasma doesn't cut it. Waves of opportunity hasn't had much of a chance to shine but I have a hard time imagining it working well. You are basically taking control out of AVs hands. They don't get to dictate the engagement at all. So smart tankers can literally never be in a position for AV to engage. The problem here has always been tanks ability to retreat and be back at 100% health. It makes AV a zero sum game. If you don't kill a tank you effectively wasted your time and ammo. This coupled with the waves of opportunity scheme and the speed of tanks means AV is vet unrewarding. WP will help that, but only a little. I still won't be having fun just because I get little higher score for my failed efforts. AV pretty much has to alpha a good tank. It's the only real way to win.Be able to hit then hard enough to kill them before they activate hardeners or have enough dps to finish them through it. Either way it just becomes a numbers game. "Does AV have enough dps to kill the tank" More weak spots encouraging positioning and aim would help that. If also like to see week spots that don't do more damage but disable aspects of the tank. Hit its bottom and its speed is reduced for 1 min. Hit a small week spot and its hardener shuts off or gets knocked to full cool down. Hit its turret and rotation speed is decreased. Make fighting a tank like a boss fight. Not "can I dps it down before it runs away"
wripple WarRavens League of Infamy 113	Posted - 2014.01.16 17:04:00 - [99] - Quote CCP Saberwing wrote: Really digging Hans' post further above. I refrained from commenting previously because I wanted to discuss things through with CPM members. I'll make sure the relevant Design guys see this thread. General consensus between ourselves and the CPM appears to be that - Vehicles have taken a step in the right direction but we will be looking to make some additional adjustments to bring them in line with where we think they should finally sit. I love you guys and the great work you've put into this game, but murder wagons that have the survivability and damage rate that militia tanks currently have for half the cost of a decent AV suit that can't kill it is just off. Two main things need to be addressed in my oppinion: -Cost of tank frames are half of what they should be, people are no longer deterred by the "play smart or loos profit" aspect of this game because you can still loos three sicas and score higher profit than a logi with 25 million SP. -there needs to be more margin between people who spend SP and those who don't, that is after all the key factor of this game after all. For example, our corp's tank specialist put 20 million SP into madrugers during 1.7, but still gets destroyed by both turret AI and full militia drivers who skipped the skill tree. Militia modules and frames are just too similar to their prototype varrients and months of SP are just not worth something trivial like "10 seconds less cool down time"
Dirks Macker Enlightened Infantries Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 113	Posted - 2014.01.16 17:30:00 - [100] - Quote Heinrich Jagerblitzen wrote: b) Strongly disagree. Without getting into somewhat irrelevant real-world examples, there's really nothing wrong with a fast tank. And certainly given the fact that these are the tanks of the future, I see no reason to make them crawl like sitting ducks all the time. From a gameplay perspective, the current speed of tanks is annoying - but its not unmanageable. There IS a problem with drive shaft reversals at those speeds. Without getting into somewhat irrelevant real-world examples of my decade of operational experience in aircraft carrier and submarine engine rooms, I can say that the torque would snap any super galactic space shaft with the way tanks alternate forward and reverse currently in DUST. There should be a counter every time a particular tank reaches a speed threshold that prevents it from reversing direction. The counter would start when the tank is stopped or at a very low speed. What would that do? It would prevent tanks from outmaneuvering freakin scouts in close quarters. If tanks were that good, why even manufacture dropsuits? I'd put my R&D into tank control point hacking mods instead. If this isn't a good idea, and since we are hitting the "I Believe Button", why aren't dropsuits of the future equipped with magnetic devices that alter the trajectory of large caliber rounds away from them? From a gameplay standpoint, that would mean tanks would need to shoot infantry with anti-infantry weapons (go figure). I think it makes zero sense that the best anti-infantry weapon is the best anti-vehicle weapon. Maybe that feature could be unique to small and/or medium suits and only applicable over a certain distance (say 15-20 meters?), but I think it would add some balance and strategy into the current gameplay. Enlightened Indoctrination Blog

Dirks Macker Enlightened Infantries Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 114	Posted - 2014.01.16 17:44:00 - [101] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: I think the range nerf will actually make the Swarm Launcher more fun once they are made a bit more effective. The lock-on time made the challenge of using it to survive while getting the lock, rather than aiming skill, and getting the lock from a sniper nest was not too much of a challenge. Why does there have to be just one missile launcher in the game? Can't there be a long-range low DPS missile and a high DPS short range (possibly unguided) missile? Enlightened Indoctrination Blog
Dusters Blog Galactic News Network 550	Posted - 2014.01.16 17:50:00 - [102] - Quote Nothing Certain wrote: The one thing I see missing in most of these discussions is the role of turret installations. If tanks should be hard to destroy, hardened permanent gun emplacements should be nearly indestructible. Right now they are the easiest things to destroy in the whole game and give a huge reward for zero risk. Turrets make a great tank deterrent when they are active, and can be accessed by those not skilled into AV. I think they should play a larger role in the game. I think they should be indestructible but capable of being disabled, this would allow infantry to engage tanks, but only in certain areas but allows tanks to disable them but not able to ignore them after that, their will be a constant struggle for control of the turrets, which I think makes for good gameplay. Other than that, what other posters have said, hardeners and escapability are the main problems and no WP for AV work unless their is a kill. Even then it is limited considering the teamwork that is necessary. This is very good. Perhaps they can be repaired after being disabled. This will make the repairers play a larger role.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 2192	Posted - 2014.01.16 17:58:00 - [103] - Quote Dirks Macker wrote: Fox Gaden wrote: I think the range nerf will actually make the Swarm Launcher more fun once they are made a bit more effective. The lock-on time made the challenge of using it to survive while getting the lock, rather than aiming skill, and getting the lock from a sniper nest was not too much of a challenge. Why does there have to be just one missile launcher in the game? Can't there be a long-range low DPS missile and a high DPS short range (possibly unguided) missile? You make a good point. A point that may be further reinforced when fighters are eventually released. I do think though that to make a long range missile fun and balanced, vehicles should have counter measures. Fox Gaden: DUST Wall of Fame, 2014
Monty Mole Clone Shiv M 126	Posted - 2014.01.16 18:07:00 - [104] - Quote Dirks Macker wrote: Heinrich Jagerblitzen wrote: b) Strongly disagree. Without getting into somewhat irrelevant real-world examples, there's really nothing wrong with a fast tank. And certainly given the fact that these are the tanks of the future, I see no reason to make them crawl like sitting ducks all the time. From a gameplay perspective, the current speed of tanks is annoying - but its not unmanageable. There IS a problem with drive shaft reversals at those speeds. Without getting into somewhat irrelevant real-world examples of my decade of operational experience in aircraft carrier and submarine engine rooms, I can say that the torque would snap any super galactic space shaft with the way tanks alternate forward and reverse currently in DUST. There should be a counter every time a particular tank reaches a speed threshold that prevents it from reversing direction. The counter would start when the tank is stopped or at a very low speed. What would that do? It would prevent tanks from outmaneuvering freakin scouts in close quarters. If tanks were that good, why even manufacture dropsuits? I'd put my R&D into tank control point hacking mods instead. If this isn't a good idea, and since we are hitting the "I Believe Button", why aren't dropsuits of the future equipped with magnetic devices that alter the trajectory of large caliber rounds away from them? From a gameplay standpoint, that would mean tanks would need to shoot infantry with anti-infantry weapons (go figure). I think it makes zero sense that the best anti-infantry weapon is the best anti-vehicle weapon. Maybe that feature could be unique to small and/or medium suits and only applicable over a certain distance (say 15-20 meters?), but I think it would add some balance and strategy into the current gameplay. giving tanks an accelerator and brake button and maybe manual gears would eliminate drag car tanks and put an actual minimal skill cap on tanks. tone down or remove 3rd person view so they cant see every incoming threat and just bail it
Andrew Ka Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 37	Posted - 2014.01.16 20:15:00 - [105] - Quote CCP Saberwing wrote: Really digging Hans' post further above. I refrained from commenting previously because I wanted to discuss things through with CPM members. I'll make sure the relevant Design guys see this thread. General consensus between ourselves and the CPM appears to be that - Vehicles have taken a step in the right direction but we will be looking to make ~~some~~many additional adjustments to bring them in line with where we think they should finally sit. Think you slipped up on a word.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation Legacy Rising 65	Posted - 2014.01.16 20:54:00 - [106] - Quote Part time AV guys, ya'll are funny. Bamm Havoc has a great vid on exactly why you lot are such ....well to put it mildly, scrubs. In the intro to another one he forge kills 3 tanks in 1.8, in about a minute. You don't want to become a dedicated AV player. You don't want to get proficiency in Forge Guns, Swarms, or Grenades or Proximity Mines. You haven't bothered to figure out a standard tank with ADV modules is over 250K isk. That the turret is still the cost of a proto suit. That red rail turrets will kill most tanks in 3 -4 shots. Nope not for you lot. You want to be your own little infantry protostomper, and you want to be able to put tanks down like a friggin MLT suit. You can't anymore and its wonderful. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Assault Chileanme Molon Labe. Public Disorder. 31	Posted - 2014.01.16 21:04:00 - [107] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: Part time AV guys, ya'll are funny. Bamm Havoc has a great vid on exactly why you lot are such ....well to put it mildly, scrubs. In the intro to another one he forge kills 3 tanks in 1.8, in about a minute. You don't want to become a dedicated AV player. You don't want to get proficiency in Forge Guns, Swarms, or Grenades or Proximity Mines. You haven't bothered to figure out a standard tank with ADV modules is over 250K isk. That the turret is still the cost of a proto suit. That red rail turrets will kill most tanks in 3 -4 shots. Nope not for you lot. You want to be your own little infantry protostomper, and you want to be able to put tanks down like a friggin MLT suit. You can't anymore and its wonderful. I must say your condescending tone is remarkably unproductive. Please don't try to derail constructive discussions that other people are having. I think there is a general consensus that infantry AV weapons are currently not optimally balanced, and this thread is about people trying to come up with a solution to those problems without just shouting about everyone else being scrubs.
Mortedeamor 1233	Posted - 2014.01.16 22:18:00 - [108] - Quote The dark cloud wrote: CCP you could end this debate witth 1 single change to the game: -allow the usage of all weapons while beeing a passanger in a dropship/LAV. The current situation is mainly frustrating for AV cause tanks can just drive off with too much speed which results getting out of range or into cover. With dropships and swarm/forgegunners standing in the door to continue pressure to hostile vehicles on the move could solve the whole balance. Tankers claim that it should take teamwork to take them out. Then we should get the tools to achieve this. Now you could hear tankers complain "but a LAV with a forgegun is like a tank!" no its not. It has much lower HP and can be taken out with 2 swarm volleys. If tankers say that AV should require teamwork then it should take teamwork to protect them against AV dropships. ^^ been saying it for a long time +1 jihhhaders = av lvl 0 swarm master = av lvl 99+
Monkey MAC Lost Millennium 1593	Posted - 2014.01.16 22:40:00 - [109] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Rynoceros wrote: Loki Patera wrote: Got a problem with tanks? Call in a missile or railgun tank. Problem solved. Got a problem with infantry? Get a rifle and some skills. Problem solved. Or, be a little FotM *** and get a splashy Railgun or Missile Turret and 3000+ HP with instant reppers and outrun even the fastest Scout. (***** scrubs.) You know, not everybody wants to be an infantryman, running around like a chicken without a head, looking for the next kill, not even counting on the next guy to hack the objective, because it seems like most people that complain about individual encounters with tanks only play ambush, and nothing else. We don't care about the status quo infantry has for this game, which is the hope that it will become 100% infantry. Suck it up and deal with it, or find another game to play. We can't be reasonable with you. You can't be reasonable with us? You have a vehicle which is no more expensive than my suit, (which is a good thing), has 1000s of EHP, is invunerable to all but SPECALIST infantry weapons, is highly mobile across multiple terrain types and comes with a weapon 100s of times better than that off infantry, yet we are unreasonable when we think it fair that AV should suppress/destroy a tank with a similar effort to the tanker. Please, for the love of God, why don't you play a role where you don't kill people, you will be much less upset when you can't do it. Have you done the math to put a tank together? My Mlt tank fit 120K, my advanced infantry fit 138,000 including miltia modules. Tanks 514 I told you, I bloody well told you. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
Monkey MAC Lost Millennium 1593	Posted - 2014.01.16 22:44:00 - [110] - Quote Assault Chileanme wrote: I agree with Fox and others that the whole dynamic seems pretty balanced now in theory. The main problems that I see are the ability for tanks to fit multiple hardeners with no penalty, and the uselessness of Swarms and AV Grenades. I think a lot of the current problems with tanks would be solved if they had more risk with engaging in close quarters combat (disregarding the issues with rail tanks). I don't know exactly what the solution is, but I know that having perma-hardened tanks is detrimental. Buffing AV grenades to be a scary weapon would also help with this I think, although perhaps with a slight range nerf to keep them from being as overpowered and versatile as they were previously. If a tank gets close enough to be withing grenade range then they should be punished for it. Theory: Where nothing works and Everyone knows why. Tanks 514 I told you, I bloody well told you. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1

Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 3546	Posted - 2014.01.16 23:02:00 - [111] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: The top turrets of all variants used to cost almost a million ISK each. Made a really good tank cost 1.2mil ISK at the very least. How would you like to lose out on that much ISK each death? Now I'm not saying that they should cost 1.2mil ISK, but there needs to be a higher cost on vehicles. With these current prices, tanking has almost no risk; but all of the reward. Now that vehicles have greatly increased survivability, you SHOULD be penalized to loosing your shiny toy in the same sense that If I bring my shiny toys onto the field I get punished for using them. Also, I had multiple tankers in a thread say that surviving incredibly barrages of AV is easily possible while un-hardned; so If you are having a problem with dying in a tank then you are either losing your tank to a railgun (which is working as intended, for Railguns are designed for AV purposes) or your loosing your tank to AV (which means you need to adjust your strategies a bit). Creator of The AV Registry The Pilot's Whipin' Boy // DJINN Lukeoplast's alleged sock *FORGE MASTER RACE*
KING CHECKMATE Ametat Security Amarr Empire 3637	Posted - 2014.01.16 23:05:00 - [112] - Quote Prius Vecht wrote: Only the most tanker homer guys and lovers of 'I win' buttons can defend the current state of tank dominance. CCP u guys are apparently looking at the metrics and are aware of the problems. What vehicle issues are you looking to resolve in 1.8? the vehicle issues as I see them are: a) Tanks dont cost nearly enough compared to their raw power. A tank should be 3x the cost of a proto suit if its going to be anywhere near as powerful as they are now. b) They are too fast. Faster than infantry is no problem but right now they're sportscar fast. c) You can't cripple them. Vehicles with less than half of its total health should be moving at 1/4 of normal speed. d) The enter/exit animation is a glitch. lets do away with teleporting in and out of vehicles and add actual animations that people cant take advantage of in a gunfight or to abandon a tank about to explode. Especially mr pop-out-in-an-instant Heavy in his LAV. e) The modules repair way too fast. going from crippled to full health in a split second? No Way. The increase should be gradual. f) Too many AV weapons are crap. The plasma cannon has a silly firing arc and doesn't do nearly enough damage for a weapon that reloads after every shot. Prox mines dont do enough damage (they should start @ 2000 per) and every vehicle has a mine detector. Shouldnt that be a module? REs should stick to tanks. g) You can recall them in an instant. No vehicle should be recalled if its damaged and they should have to wait on the RDV just like when theyre dropped off. No teleporting. Recalling cant be an exploit to get your tank out of harm's way when things go badly. h) AV was tuned badly. Swarms were taken down too much and AV grenades were too. Forges are the direct counter to vehicles and the hits should be devastating to them. Reduce grenade spam by making people equip grenades and then throw them with R1. I APPROVE OF THIS MESSAGE. GIVE ME A RESPEC CCP.
Bradric Banewolf D3M3NT3D M1NDZ The Umbra Combine 11	Posted - 2014.01.16 23:25:00 - [113] - Quote Loki Patera wrote: Got a problem with tanks? Call in a missile or railgun tank. Problem solved. Also - I don't think the blaster is overpowered against infantry like most people. If you don't have something that devastates infantry at the base of the tank tree then there is no reason for other tanks to be called in to deal with it. The outcome would be no tanks on the battlefield. But yes - AV needs a bit of a buff - especially the Plasma Cannon and Swarms. Wow really?! Ok brother let me help you understand exactly where we are coming from with this?! The blaster's rate of fire is that of a breach assault rifle with the damage of a tactical duvolle with three complex dmg mods?! The tank it's mounted to is faster than everything else on the field, and has the most armor and shields?!? Is this adding up yet? And if that's not enough just get another one.... or five! At the price of a dropsuit? Wait a minute?!? So if I go by what you say I and all my team should just get three men to as many tanks as we can fill and just clone the opposite team every match right? forget hacking or anything else for that matter?! Just get in a tank lol! Your a tankwr clearly so I don't expect a tactical answer by any means. Your idea of tactical is cracking a peanut with a sludgehammer?! On a. ood day, as the AV weapon wielding player I am, I can take out 10 militia tanks with or without help and one or two madrugar or gunnlogi. On a bad day I deter them a little at best?! I sacrifice wp's to take on these fast and op brutes because no one wants to take on these things with overly nerfed weapons and I don't blame them. I only get 150 wp's for a tank kill, and 50 for the driver if he doesn't bail. If he does bail more than likely he's a heavy of some sort with an hmg?! Now I gotta try to drop him with my M512 sub before he gets me or the other 3 tanks do?! And for what? 200 measly wp's?!? Most of the militia tank drivers don't spec into these cheap cans of metal, and are actually proto heavies?! How about we have the up and coming pilot suit universal to all vehicles and the only suit you can wear when operating tank, dropship, or future mechs. excluding lav's for obvious reasons?! Right now I spend 95% of my game time in my multiple anti vehicle fits to help my comrades. It has become my specialty since even before 1.7. I know CCP intends to dish out more wp's for tank kills, and that can't come soon enough?! But please miss me with the whole "just get in a tank" spill?! It's purely stupid smh?! "Anybody order chaos?"
KING CHECKMATE Ametat Security Amarr Empire 3640	Posted - 2014.01.16 23:28:00 - [114] - Quote CCP Saberwing wrote: General consensus between ourselves and the CPM appears to be that - Vehicles have taken a step in the right direction t. Yeah but nerfing the hell out of AV wasnt. So in the end , you are still in the same BAD position regarding AV-tank balance. GIVE ME A RESPEC CCP.
Bradric Banewolf D3M3NT3D M1NDZ The Umbra Combine 11	Posted - 2014.01.17 00:00:00 - [115] - Quote CCP Saberwing wrote: Really digging Hans' post further above. I refrained from commenting previously because I wanted to discuss things through with CPM members. I'll make sure the relevant Design guys see this thread. General consensus between ourselves and the CPM appears to be that - Vehicles have taken a step in the right direction but we will be looking to make some additional adjustments to bring them in line with where we think they should finally sit. I agree! They have taken a step in the right direction when one considers the upcoming aspects to be added to this game. Tanks are tough, but I can take them out! I have made it my job in game to do just that. When I started playing this game I fell in love with, of all things, the anti armor fit smh?! I only ask that ccp take that starter fit in particular into consideration when making adjustments, and consider how long it would take a new player with the same interest to be able to bring something to the the team other than 15 dead clones?! If we plan on ever retaining new players I think ccp went in the right direction with basic level rifles and dropsuits by buffing them and mlt as well. At first I didn't lile it but as a new player you wouldnt stand a chance without some kind of advantage. Militia gear in numbers should be just as effective as advanced gear by itself. If three guys in mlt gear are firing on you, there is no way you should walk away from that vitorious?! I don't care what your sp is! This game requiring tactics is the one thing that draws us to it, not god mode! So keep up the good work ccp, and for crying out loud fix the glitches first before introducing cloaks?! I can only imagine how bad that would be with glitches. Proto AV'er here tank so you better move it before I break that wallet! "Anybody order chaos?"
Quil Evrything Triple Terrors 754	Posted - 2014.01.17 00:19:00 - [116] - Quote Bones McGavins wrote: Anyone who simply says "use teamwork" has clearly never encountered tankers doing the same. A squad with a couple tankers will roll the squad with none.. This is true; however, it is important to point out a related fact; it wouldnt be such a big deal, if the non-tanker side could then bring out their own to counter. However, once one side has a mini-squad of tanks, and the other doesnt... the tanker side can then completely deny all RDV deliveries. THAT, is what makes the current system a game breaker. Otherwise, anyone could just whip out some militia tanks to counter the ones on the field.
Vance Alken Commando Perkone Caldari State 121	Posted - 2014.01.17 00:49:00 - [117] - Quote Quote: Also, while we're on the subject, I totally think that hacked enemy vehicles should be allowed to be RDV recalled and put into your own inventory stock. This just makes sense. Its New Eden after all, if someone leaves you something awesome you should be allowed to just steal it and own it. This would be the most amazing thing ever. Can't believe it isn't already in the game.
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 466	Posted - 2014.01.17 00:54:00 - [118] - Quote poison Diego wrote: the tanks speed has been crippled enough. the base speed is definitely not hard to deal with and the nitrus is useless unless its complex. its not hard to take out tanks, use teamwork and tanks wont stand for long. railguns are broken and everyone knows it, nerf damage by 25% and RoF by 15% and everyone is happy Basic railguns seem okay, ADV and PRO Railguns are just... WTF material, and I am a Rail tank user myself... which says something about the ADV and PRO variants... If you can read this, it means you are reading. Unless you are skimming
Obodiah Garro Tech Guard RISE of LEGION 522	Posted - 2014.01.17 02:45:00 - [119] - Quote Bones McGavins wrote: Anyone who simply says "use teamwork" has clearly never encountered tankers doing the same. A squad with a couple tankers will roll the squad with none. If you need to dedicate half your squad to AV to take out one tank, that tanker now has squadmates free to 2:1 your non AV then mop up the AV. I kill a lot of idiots with my pistol when AV but any decent players would destroy me due to my lack of range. And even the idiots usually distract me long enough for the tanks to escape. Also, chasing off tanks all day isn't fun. Sorry but I want kills. Even WP won't make it much better unless the WP is significant enough to earn me a solo orbita like infantry play would. Finally I have hopped in militia tanks to see what I'm up against. I literally started laughing my ass off at how useless swarms are. With harderner on I literally outrepped and off I could just ignore them. Only other tanks have ever killed me while my blaster destroys AV. And I'm a complete skill less noob in a tank. This pretty much sums up the HAV farce atm lol
Scheneighnay McBob Learning Coalition College 3589	Posted - 2014.01.17 02:47:00 - [120] - Quote CCP Saberwing wrote: Really digging Hans' post further above. I refrained from commenting previously because I wanted to discuss things through with CPM members. I'll make sure the relevant Design guys see this thread. General consensus between ourselves and the CPM appears to be that - Vehicles have taken a step in the right direction but we will be looking to make some additional adjustments to bring them in line with where we think they should finally sit. Glad to see CCP is keeping the reasonable view that vehicles aren't just fancy killstreaks We used to have a time machine

Bax Zanith 1	Posted - 2014.01.17 05:46:00 - [121] - Quote Mortedeamor wrote: The dark cloud wrote: CCP you could end this debate witth 1 single change to the game: -allow the usage of all weapons while beeing a passanger in a dropship/LAV. The current situation is mainly frustrating for AV cause tanks can just drive off with too much speed which results getting out of range or into cover. With dropships and swarm/forgegunners standing in the door to continue pressure to hostile vehicles on the move could solve the whole balance. Tankers claim that it should take teamwork to take them out. Then we should get the tools to achieve this. Now you could hear tankers complain "but a LAV with a forgegun is like a tank!" no its not. It has much lower HP and can be taken out with 2 swarm volleys. If tankers say that AV should require teamwork then it should take teamwork to protect them against AV dropships. ^^ been saying it for a long time +1 This would be a varry fun way to inspire co-operation, now that I have read it I'm gonna be dreaming about it for a vary long time. But I can't help but fell that such a mechanic as this would just be abused like the current tank price. I can see it now, snipers in a dropship, maybe even proto rail rifels. You can't reach them, but they can reach you. I'm probably just paranoid is all, but if I'm not; Maybe vehicles could have swarm launchers of there own? A small turret that acts just like swarms, just lock on and fire. LAVs will have a better use then just simply suicide bombing. Tanks can just duck behind something to avoid swarms easy-pesy. An AV dropship fitted with swarm turrets could give a tank a run for his munny like they do to us DS pilots. And best of all, tanks would have another way to one up eachother. I'd say walk in my shoes for a day, but you probably still won't understand.
Scott Knight Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 7	Posted - 2014.01.17 06:28:00 - [122] - Quote Rynoceros wrote: +1 But, I have thought.... What if it required all seats to be occupied to operate a HAV? What their teams gains in killing power, they lose in the amount of infantry that is able to make hacks. So, now your team has to decide; do we battle to win by clone count or MCC destruction? Virtually every tank I've seen has opted for not having the additional seats. So they can only hold 1 person.
Kuroiokami Tsukinaku A.N.O.N.Y.M.O.U.S. 17	Posted - 2014.01.17 07:40:00 - [123] - Quote CCP Saberwing wrote: General consensus between ourselves and the CPM appears to be that - Vehicles have taken a step in the right direction but we will be looking to make some additional adjustments to bring them in line with where we think they should finally sit. That's such an underwhelming response...we're tanks UP prior to 1.7? No doubt. But the improvements to HAVs and the nerfing of AV is equally unbalaned. I never recalled any AV fit going 34/2 back prior to 1.7. But Sabers comments (to me) read as that the game is near what they want for the HAV/AV balance and that only the smallest of changes need to be made. Then again CC has never gotten a reputation for small incremental changes. It makes large changes... Throws in new equipment and dropsuits, changes stats entirely, and hopes that whatever sticks to the poreclin will be balanced.
Alpha 443-6732 299	Posted - 2014.01.17 10:14:00 - [124] - Quote The dark cloud wrote: CCP you could end this debate witth 1 single change to the game: -allow the usage of all weapons while beeing a passanger in a dropship/LAV. The current situation is mainly frustrating for AV cause tanks can just drive off with too much speed which results getting out of range or into cover. With dropships and swarm/forgegunners standing in the door to continue pressure to hostile vehicles on the move could solve the whole balance. Tankers claim that it should take teamwork to take them out. Then we should get the tools to achieve this. Now you could hear tankers complain "but a LAV with a forgegun is like a tank!" no its not. It has much lower HP and can be taken out with 2 swarm volleys. If tankers say that AV should require teamwork then it should take teamwork to protect them against AV dropships. I was just talking about this with a friend, great idea. I don't think any tankers would complain, it would help AV perform a supportive AV role while having the option of being mechanized and protected slightly. But make it so that only light and sidearm weapons could be fired, or have an accuracy penalty on the forge gun while moving or something (just because of logic). I'm not sure if it would work with dropships unless they got a redesign (firing from the inside might cause issues with friendly fire) Because racism is realism
Charlotte O'Dell Fatal Absolution Covert Intervention 1644	Posted - 2014.01.17 16:49:00 - [125] - Quote CCP Saberwing wrote: Really digging Hans' post further above. I refrained from commenting previously because I wanted to discuss things through with CPM members. I'll make sure the relevant Design guys see this thread. General consensus between ourselves and the CPM appears to be that - Vehicles have taken a step in the right direction but we will be looking to make some additional adjustments to bring them in line with where we think they should finally sit. Okay. I like the direction they're going (waves of opportunity), but AV is too weak to kill a tank in the wake of a wave. Charlotte O'Dell is the highest level unicorn!


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [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.