DUST Search - Question to tank drivers

All Channels

General Discussions

Question to tank drivers

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
The Attorney General 1765	Posted - 2014.01.16 15:55:00 - [1] - Quote Until the OP takes off his dropsuit and fights like a real clone, this is just hypocrisy. Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
The Attorney General 1768	Posted - 2014.01.16 19:12:00 - [2] - Quote Flix Keptick wrote: Do you seriously think I'm using tanks because they are a fotm, and not using them because I want to do something different? Has it crossed your mind that some people used tanks even when they were bad because they enjoy it? Ass hole... I've been tanking since Uprising, but apparently I am a FotM chaser now. Loving it. Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
The Attorney General 1768	Posted - 2014.01.16 19:28:00 - [3] - Quote Chaos Scum wrote: would you like a medal? you never answered my question. when were tanks bad? I would kill for my madrugar to be like it was in 1.6. It wasn't that tanks were bad. Well, Gunloggis were. The biggest reason why tanks were getting crapped on in 1.0-1.6 was because of horrible rendering. Because swarms users could be within range and not draw meant that invisible swarms that were doing massive damage were a common sight. Why would you want the old Maddy back? Slower, lower resists, but with better reps. Sure you could fit more on it, but the single fit requirement was boring. Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
The Attorney General 1769	Posted - 2014.01.16 20:48:00 - [4] - Quote Chaos Scum wrote: The Attorney General wrote: Chaos Scum wrote: would you like a medal? you never answered my question. when were tanks bad? I would kill for my madrugar to be like it was in 1.6. It wasn't that tanks were bad. Well, Gunloggis were. The biggest reason why tanks were getting crapped on in 1.0-1.6 was because of horrible rendering. Because swarms users could be within range and not draw meant that invisible swarms that were doing massive damage were a common sight. Why would you want the old Maddy back? Slower, lower resists, but with better reps. Sure you could fit more on it, but the single fit requirement was boring. I had scans, nitro dmg mod and passive resist. it was a decent little tank it only costed me 550k to fit and with some skill and luck I could make it last 3-5 matches. it could turn. Horrible fit. You would have got rolledeverytime you met some running THE fit. Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
The Attorney General 1772	Posted - 2014.01.16 23:32:00 - [5] - Quote Chaos Scum wrote: Chaos Scum wrote: I had scans, nitro dmg mod and passive resist. it was a decent little tank it only costed me 550k to fit and with some skill and luck I could make it last 3-5 matches. it could turn. youd be surprised how many PC maddies I pasted. Its was all about skill before. now its about the rail. [/quote] I would be surprised if you pasted any maddies, let alone PC tankers. That fit of yours would have been smashed every time it encountered anyone who was playing PC. Nitrous Scan 2x Carapace Hardener 1 x Heavy Efficient Rep 180 Nano Proto turret of choice. Scattered Blaster or Compressed Rail most likely, Vanilla Paticle Cannon for those in the know. There was a little leeway, either swapping out nitrous or stepping up the plate on a Missile turret, but if you were not running that you were pretty much done. There was no fitting variation, it was either run that, or its lesser cousins, or get rolled. Skill was in positioning only, because either you started firing first or you didn't. Unless you could goad an enemy into a mistake after that point, shooting second was fatal. Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
The Attorney General 1772	Posted - 2014.01.16 23:36:00 - [6] - Quote Chaos Scum wrote: proto cannons aren't that scary. its the dual hardened maddies they sit on. Madrugars are sad right now. If you are afraid of a maddy, I feel bad for you. Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
The Attorney General 1775	Posted - 2014.01.17 14:59:00 - [7] - Quote Atiim wrote: Lolno. Vehicles wouldn't have become OP if it wasn't for people like you and Spkr4TheDead over-exaggerating ever detail possible all throught Uprising. I'm not wondering why your impossible to kill. Why? Because. I already knew why people would even before 1.7 dropped. Any Tom, ****, and Harry can easily hop into a tank and go 30/0 with minimal to no effort. Heck, I gave the controller to my 8 year old daughter and she managed to go 27/1 (She died to a Redline Tank at th end). If you think that you can survive entire matches because of your "skill" then I feel bad for you. Also, the way you worded that post would imply that you actually adapted. I'd fix that up If I were you. -HAND I would blame certain tankers, but also the vast horde of infantry who refused to even discuss anything about the OP av of the time. What is funny is that you complain about not wanting to spec into a forge and a fat suit to deal with tanks, but I as a vehicle driver had to spec into a dropsuit, a sniper rifle, and a whole host of supporting skills so that I could get people off of rooftops before 1.7. Did I cry about it? Nope, I just dumped 4 million SP into countering my counter. Did I want to do it? Of course not, who wants to be a scrub sniper? But the game gave me no choice, so I adapted. Now you can continue blaming everyone else, and trying to act high and mighty. Because you could never be part of the problem at all could you? Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
The Attorney General 1775	Posted - 2014.01.17 15:17:00 - [8] - Quote Atiim wrote: Kinda hard to be part of the problem that somebody else created. Yet you blame people that obviously had nothing to do with it either. The only party that could rightly be faulted is CCP. Tankers were willing to engage with CCP while the medium frame AV'ers insisted everything was fine. Tankers knew the data would back them up, it did, and changes were made. If those people who had resisted so hard seen the winds of change and taken an active role in the discussion, the nerf would probably not been so severe. The main difference between your campaign and those that came before it was that we had no partner in dialogue, and so debate was impossible. You have many willing to enter into discussion with you, but not once have you presented any sort of detailed idea of how you think AV should be. Do you have any idea of what sort of buffs or nerfs to tanks or AV you want? Or is everything just a blob of nerf tanks and buff AV? I amuse myself with your posts, but I am keenly aware that you are not a rational actor, and clearly have no intention of providing meaningful feedback. Your posts are all emotion, no substance. Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
The Attorney General 1775	Posted - 2014.01.17 15:29:00 - [9] - Quote Chaos Scum wrote: I would blame certain tankers, but also the vast horde of infantry who refused to even discuss anything about the OP av of the time. What is funny is that you complain about not wanting to spec into a forge and a fat suit to deal with tanks, but I as a vehicle driver had to spec into a dropsuit, a sniper rifle, and a whole host of supporting skills so that I could get people off of rooftops before 1.7. Did I cry about it? Nope, I just dumped 4 million SP into countering my counter. Did I want to do it? Of course not, who wants to be a scrub sniper? But the game gave me no choice, so I adapted. Now you can continue blaming everyone else, and trying to act high and mighty. Because you could never be part of the problem at all could you? you are not a tank. you are infantry. you chose not to put skills into infantry in favor of using one piece of equipment on the battle field. the tank is immune to almost every weapon. the infantry you are making your argument against are vulnerable to every weapon including your tank. everyones choices are different, AV is not for everyone, neither is tanking. If the tankers and AVers could fight this out without everyone else being dragged into it, it would be preferable. The way CCP has it set up is the person who skilled into tanks has the upper hand. this should have never have happened, it is making everyone miserable.[/quote] I spent my SP into tanks when swarms had a range of 400 metres, but were visible only from 100m and closer, if you were lucky. Oh, and they also hit for 3k armor damage a volley. And since reps took 4-5 seconds to activate, you would eat a whole mag before any reps started. FGs had the same render problem, except they did even more damage than they do now. And AV nades were much more powerful, such that they could knock out a hardened Madrugar in 5 nades versus a double hardened Maddy. On top of that tanks were slower, and had less resist. I am not arguing against infantry, I am stating a fact about the attitudes of people on the forums during the 1.0-1.6 timeframe. The manner of the debate was wholly dysfunctional. Tankers knew what they saw, and complained accordingly, people benefiting from the situation told them to HTFU. On the flip side now, and I can point to some of those same "crybaby" tankers and them making posts about buffing AV. "Crybaby" tankers are calling for AV buffs, but when AV was OP, where were people like Atiim to call for AV nerfs or tank buffs? Are their irrational tankers? Sure, and some of them are annoying as all get out. But there are also lots of tankers who want to move the game forward and get back to fun interactions between vehicles and infantry, not the rail tank snoozefest we have going on right now. Engage with those people, and provide meaningful feedback instead of useless generalizations. Also, learn to format. A solid paragraph like that is ugly, and difficult to read. Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
The Attorney General 1775	Posted - 2014.01.17 15:45:00 - [10] - Quote Atiim wrote: In can't reply to your first post Attorney, as my laptop is going to die and I don't have enough time. So I'll just put state this. I have said multipule time that vehicles needed a buff. Benjamin Ciscko made a thread asking me about that here. This was my official stance on AV before 1.7 That post is useless. Your argument back then still doesn't stand up concerning tanks requiring teamwork, and saying that tanks needed a price decrease is no revelation. Once again, there is no substance in your arguments. I can make arguments for why I think things are in need of changes, I can put together numerical models of what I think would work, and yet you can never produce anything above the most simple of posts. The funny thing is that vehicles didn't need the total overhaul they got. If there had been some reasonable nerf to swarms while they fixed the rendering, this all would have been moot. Because the AV lobby refused to give any ground, this is what we got. So even though I can say give swarms 15% more damage, and 10% more range, give the FG its charge times from 1.6, and give the PLC 25% more damage, 20% faster pre-charge, and a 15% reduction to reload, you never did make such a proposition for tanks. And even though I can say that the Gunloggi needs a 15% reduction in CPU, a 20% reduction in PG, and both tanks need a 5% reduction in top speed, you would never had made the call for AV nerfs before 1.6, even though they were clearly needed. So unless you have specific, direct ideas and are willing to share them, from now on I will be doing nothing but mocking you for failing at debate and AV. Edit: And blaster turrets need a 30% nerf to range, they are stupid right now. Mr. Hybrid Vayu.

The Attorney General 1775	Posted - 2014.01.17 20:05:00 - [11] - Quote Atiim wrote: Atiim wrote: This was my official stance on AV before 1.7 Price decreasing wasn't the only buff I was in favor of. That was just one example. Even if, that was a response to you saying that I and others on the AV side didn't call for a vehicle buff, when that is not the case at all. I was saying that there were no AV'ers out there calling for AV nerfs. There were even some Forge Gun users who were trying to argue that thing wasn't OP versus infantry when it clearly was. Calling for a vehicle buff, one that was arguably not needed, especially in the face of the range and RoF issues, is not the same as calling for a needed nerf. Atiim wrote: Really? When I first came here I made many suggestions on how to buff vehicles without nerfing AV. However, people only saw the "don't nerf AV" part and decided to go bat$#!t crazy. After a while I just decided to not even bother posting stats anymore. Well, I do remember saying that 400m is way too much; but other than that I said to buff vehicles. I thought that this would be better because it both solves the AV problem, while also making Vehicle vs. Vehicle fights a bit longer and more exciting. [/i] If you thought that AV nades and swarms were fine, which you sort of did, then it does take away a lot of the resulting post because it flies in the face of what tank drivers saw every day. It runs counter to my own experiences on the ground, and I would gather that the data CCP looked at backed that up. Again, the Gunnloggi needed a buff. The Madrugar was a serviceable vehicle I think. All of that was masked by the rendering problems. It was impossible to balance while those problems remained. No one can say what would have happened if we had gotten 1.7 without the tank changes but with the rendering changes. Ultimately though, those types of tanks could not expand, so we got the new system. Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
The Attorney General 1775	Posted - 2014.01.17 20:21:00 - [12] - Quote Atiim wrote: There didn't need to be any "reasonable nerf to Swarms." (Well, apart from range; 400m is insane). There did however need to be a "reasonable buff to vehicles." Please tell me what only nerfing the Swarm Launcher would have solved. everyonee would just flock over to the Forge Gun. I didn't say just swarms launchers, but swarms and AV nades. If medium or light frames want to do significant amounts of damage I believe that should be left to some form of direct fire weapon. If AV nades didn't track, they could do the same damage as fluxes. Once this touches on a fundamental difference in how we think AV should run. Heavies are best suited as a role to AV, and should be the primary suit choice of AV players. More forges mean more kills for medium frames being pushed forward to encounter them. It encourages more of a varied gameplay because an anti vehicle suit will be dependent on a logi for ammo and close range infantry protection, while being a serious threat to all vehicles. Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
The Attorney General 1776	Posted - 2014.01.18 02:51:00 - [13] - Quote Rusty Shallows wrote: Amarrgheddon wrote: Question to OP. If they don't care that they ruined Dust 514, what makes you think they care about your opinion? This. Although it's not fair to blame all HAV TCs or all HAV TCs on the forums. Those responsible were a small subset of the vehicle dedicated community who had no problem taken whatever action they deemed necessary to get a blatantly unfair advantage. That's politics. Keep blaming the players for CCP and their design decisions. Makes you seem like someone that others should really try to reason with. Mr. Hybrid Vayu.

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.