DUST Search - A Solution for CQC Rail Tanks

All Channels

General Discussions

A Solution for CQC Rail Tanks

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Harpyja Molon Labe. Public Disorder. 1102	Posted - 2014.01.17 00:00:00 - [1] - Quote What do you think about immobilizing the vehicle when a large railgun is being charged up or when the charge is being held? It's meant for long range, and just like the sniper, you stand still to be accurate at range. And just like the sniper, railguns should be outmatched at close range. I personally think that this change will help solve the issue of CQC rail tanks that can stomp on anything and giving other tanks that are meant for CQC a chance to outmaneuver the rail tank and win. Right now, the maneuverability of the tank hull allows for rail tanks to apply their damage at CQC. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
Jason Pearson 3956	Posted - 2014.01.17 00:02:00 - [2] - Quote Harpyja wrote: What do you think about immobilizing the vehicle when a large railgun is being charged up or when the charge is being held? It's meant for long range, and just like the sniper, you stand still to be accurate at range. And just like the sniper, railguns should be outmatched at close range. I personally think that this change will help solve the issue of CQC rail tanks that can stomp on anything and giving other tanks that are meant for CQC a chance to outmaneuver the rail tank and win. Right now, the maneuverability of the tank hull allows for rail tanks to apply their damage at CQC. But.. it wouldn't help.. have a tendency to CQC and sit still soaking up damage, I would still kill you. Not that I mind this idea at all, just personally wouldn't affect me and I'd be even more of a pain in the ass to kill I think. King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire \\ Bad Mathematician You're a total git, Jason. - kingbabar
Tch Tch Red Shirts Away Team 154	Posted - 2014.01.17 00:04:00 - [3] - Quote Make it like old school tank destroyers which didnt have turrets just a massive forward facing gun. Turrent - the sound a tankers pants makes when he finds out the four swarm militia doing squats around him aren't AFK.
ANON Cerberus Tiny Toons 42	Posted - 2014.01.17 00:07:00 - [4] - Quote Harpyja wrote: What do you think about immobilizing the vehicle when a large railgun is being charged up or when the charge is being held? It's meant for long range, and just like the sniper, you stand still to be accurate at range. And just like the sniper, railguns should be outmatched at close range. I personally think that this change will help solve the issue of CQC rail tanks that can stomp on anything and giving other tanks that are meant for CQC a chance to outmaneuver the rail tank and win. Right now, the maneuverability of the tank hull allows for rail tanks to apply their damage at CQC. Well I have no real stance on this issue as I'm happy to see where CCP take it but why not just make its mechanics similar to the laser rifle? Give it its range, but have its damage profile set that if it is shooting things really close it loses its damage just like a laser rifle. My only problem then is that's not at all realistic. Why would the round do less damage up close than far away?
Vulpes Dolosus SVER True Blood Public Disorder. 614	Posted - 2014.01.17 00:07:00 - [5] - Quote Makes sense, I guess. Such a forceful weapon would force the vehicle into "lock down" for stability. Idk how effective it would be, but it might help. Dropship Specialist Kills- Incubus: 4; Pythons: 1; Other DS: 28 Gêå1; Tanks: 27 Gêå2 1/1
Foundation Seldon Gespenster Kompanie 384	Posted - 2014.01.17 00:09:00 - [6] - Quote Or let's do the simple thing and rollback their damage to what standard Railguns were at in the last patch? Saga v. Methana Balance
MINA Longstrike 2Shitz 1Giggle 210	Posted - 2014.01.17 00:15:00 - [7] - Quote Harpyja wrote: What do you think about immobilizing the vehicle when a large railgun is being charged up or when the charge is being held? It's meant for long range, and just like the sniper, you stand still to be accurate at range. And just like the sniper, railguns should be outmatched at close range. I personally think that this change will help solve the issue of CQC rail tanks that can stomp on anything and giving other tanks that are meant for CQC a chance to outmaneuver the rail tank and win. Right now, the maneuverability of the tank hull allows for rail tanks to apply their damage at CQC. "Waaaah redline rail snipers are op" "waaaah rail tanks shouldn't be able to fight in CQC" "waaaah blasters are op" if it were up to you idiots tanks wouldn't have any weapons and would die to a stern look.
Kigurosaka Laaksonen DUST University Ivy League 141	Posted - 2014.01.17 00:20:00 - [8] - Quote "apply their damage at CQC." I have very few vehicle skills (I'll post them when I can look them up) but I don't have any problems getting in a blaster tank and avoiding rail tanks by circling around them. Circle, shoot, they die eventually. The only thing I could say about that tactic is that having the controls for Accelerate/Decelerate and Turn Left/Right both on the left analog stick is a pain in the ass, especially when trying to maneuver in tight spaces. DUST 514 Recruit Code - https://dust514.com/recruit/zluCyb/ EVE Buddy Invite - Too damn long. Ask me for it.
Kigurosaka Laaksonen DUST University Ivy League 141	Posted - 2014.01.17 00:24:00 - [9] - Quote And while I'm at it, I have a small blaster turret on my rail and blaster tanks to better handle Infantry (not much good against other tanks) that get in close. The HAVS had a forward facing small turret and a small turret mounted on the main turret. I want the small turret to be mounted on the main turret so it can turn 360deg. When I fit it in the fitting window I can see if it's forward mounted or main turret mounted, but when I deploy it in game it's always forward mounted. Is that a bug? DUST 514 Recruit Code - https://dust514.com/recruit/zluCyb/ EVE Buddy Invite - Too damn long. Ask me for it.
Benjamin Ciscko The Generals General Tso's Alliance 1238	Posted - 2014.01.17 00:29:00 - [10] - Quote I personally want less damage or lower ROF I'm more for lower ROF because I believe it should be a high alpha damage vehicle but not as powerful in extended combat (drag the fight long enough to kill them). If you really don't want them to be CQC you could say make it so that shells don't explode until x meters so the damage is like 400 damage (your still getting hit) but nothing is detonating I'm not for this but it would fix CQC rails. Caldari Tanker/Minmatar Assault Forum warrior lvl 1

Benjamin Ciscko The Generals General Tso's Alliance 1238	Posted - 2014.01.17 00:31:00 - [11] - Quote Kigurosaka Laaksonen wrote: And while I'm at it, I have a small blaster turret on my rail and blaster tanks to better handle Infantry (not much good against other tanks) that get in close. The HAVS had a forward facing small turret and a small turret mounted on the main turret. I want the small turret to be mounted on the main turret so it can turn 360deg. When I fit it in the fitting window I can see if it's forward mounted or main turret mounted, but when I deploy it in game it's always forward mounted. Is that a bug? If you place one turret it will always be on the bottom I'm not sure if that is intended but that will happen every time to get a top turret you need two turrets. Caldari Tanker/Minmatar Assault Forum warrior lvl 1
Henchmen21 Planet Express LLC 429	Posted - 2014.01.17 00:31:00 - [12] - Quote Because thousands of years into the future tanks would some how not be able to do what their ancient forebears could do? Henchmen21: Infantry Gotyougood Ufkr: Vehicles
Talryn Vilneram SVER True Blood Public Disorder. 151	Posted - 2014.01.17 00:32:00 - [13] - Quote Screw it, lets make them like Siege Tanks from Starcraft. I love those things.
Henchmen21 Planet Express LLC 429	Posted - 2014.01.17 00:34:00 - [14] - Quote Kigurosaka Laaksonen wrote: And while I'm at it, I have a small blaster turret on my rail and blaster tanks to better handle Infantry (not much good against other tanks) that get in close. The HAVS had a forward facing small turret and a small turret mounted on the main turret. I want the small turret to be mounted on the main turret so it can turn 360deg. When I fit it in the fitting window I can see if it's forward mounted or main turret mounted, but when I deploy it in game it's always forward mounted. Is that a bug? Maybe mount two small turrets along with the main then remove the first of the smalls. One would think that the second would stay mounted where it was. Henchmen21: Infantry Gotyougood Ufkr: Vehicles
Xocoyol Zaraoul Superior Genetics 1815	Posted - 2014.01.17 00:35:00 - [15] - Quote Why are CQC rails a problem? If we don't like rails sniping from redline, nor do we like them up close... What role do you want them in? They don't OHK tanks like damage-modded Missiles, they don't curb-stomp infantry anywhere near as fast as blaster tanks... Why are Rails a problem in CQC? Maybe I'm just biased, but as a hard-core tanker until 1.7 and a forge-gun/hmg heavy who runs minnie assaults on the side, I just don't see the problem with CQC rails. My corpmates don't seem to have a problem with them either, even our remaining "real" tanker who runs missile tanks, nor our "infantry-for-life" suiters. Closed Beta Vet Reading the forums detracts from overall enjoyment of the game
Scheneighnay McBob Learning Coalition College 3585	Posted - 2014.01.17 00:35:00 - [16] - Quote Just nerf the tracking speed so smart people just speed tank them. We used to have a time machine
Amarrgheddon Warcaste 100	Posted - 2014.01.17 00:36:00 - [17] - Quote Benjamin Ciscko wrote: Kigurosaka Laaksonen wrote: And while I'm at it, I have a small blaster turret on my rail and blaster tanks to better handle Infantry (not much good against other tanks) that get in close. The HAVS had a forward facing small turret and a small turret mounted on the main turret. I want the small turret to be mounted on the main turret so it can turn 360deg. When I fit it in the fitting window I can see if it's forward mounted or main turret mounted, but when I deploy it in game it's always forward mounted. Is that a bug? If you place one turret it will always be on the bottom I'm not sure if that is intended but that will happen every time to get a top turret you need two turrets. place one in the first slot from the left. It will be on top
Benjamin Ciscko The Generals General Tso's Alliance 1238	Posted - 2014.01.17 00:36:00 - [18] - Quote Talryn Vilneram wrote: Screw it, lets make them like Siege Tanks from Starcraft. I love those things. I haven't played that game in forever I should reinstall it just for lulz. Caldari Tanker/Minmatar Assault Forum warrior lvl 1
Benjamin Ciscko The Generals General Tso's Alliance 1238	Posted - 2014.01.17 00:37:00 - [19] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Just nerf the tracking speed so smart people just speed tank them. I can do that now it is just way easier with a nitrus. Caldari Tanker/Minmatar Assault Forum warrior lvl 1
Jason Pearson 3958	Posted - 2014.01.17 00:38:00 - [20] - Quote Kigurosaka Laaksonen wrote: And while I'm at it, I have a small blaster turret on my rail and blaster tanks to better handle Infantry (not much good against other tanks) that get in close. The HAVS had a forward facing small turret and a small turret mounted on the main turret. I want the small turret to be mounted on the main turret so it can turn 360deg. When I fit it in the fitting window I can see if it's forward mounted or main turret mounted, but when I deploy it in game it's always forward mounted. Is that a bug? According to the data someone told me about on IRC, DUST doesn't recognize the slots and will move the turret to the front, with the top being secondary, so until CCP address it (I made a bug report a while ago) we're stuck with the front turret. King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire \\ Bad Mathematician You're a total git, Jason. - kingbabar

Tch Tch Red Shirts Away Team 156	Posted - 2014.01.17 00:39:00 - [21] - Quote Kigurosaka Laaksonen wrote: "apply their damage at CQC." I have very few vehicle skills (I'll post them when I can look them up) but I don't have any problems getting in a blaster tank and avoiding rail tanks by circling around them. Circle, shoot, they die eventually. The only thing I could say about that tactic is that having the controls for Accelerate/Decelerate and Turn Left/Right both on the left analog stick is a pain in the ass, especially when trying to maneuver in tight spaces. I'm pretty sure you can go into the game options and modify your vehicle only controls. I've also heard it effects anyone who hacks your vehicle... Not sure if that is true. Turrent - the sound a tankers pants makes when he finds out the four swarm militia doing squats around him aren't AFK.
Benjamin Ciscko The Generals General Tso's Alliance 1238	Posted - 2014.01.17 00:44:00 - [22] - Quote Xocoyol Zaraoul wrote: Why are CQC rails a problem? If we don't like rails sniping from redline, nor do we like them up close... What role do you want them in? They don't OHK tanks like damage-modded Missiles, they don't curb-stomp infantry anywhere near as fast as blaster tanks... Why are Rails a problem in CQC? Maybe I'm just biased, but as a hard-core tanker until 1.7 and a forge-gun/hmg heavy who runs minnie assaults on the side, I just don't see the problem with CQC rails. My corpmates don't seem to have a problem with them either, even our remaining "real" tanker who runs missile tanks, nor our "infantry-for-life" suiters. Infantry don't care about rails because only good rail tankers can get enough infantry kills to annoy the other team, Missiles don't OHK every thing single hardened armor OHK double hardened armor 2HK (unless I land all 12 on weak spot) I can take two inexperienced sica's on at once but good shield tanks/tankers are a b*tch to kill missiles take forever to reload and aren't so hard to kill if you know what your doing. (I only run PRO missiles w/ a damage mod and reload V and have killed milkman1, Covert Clay, multiple STB tankers I know my limits) Caldari Tanker/Minmatar Assault Forum warrior lvl 1
Henchmen21 Planet Express LLC 430	Posted - 2014.01.17 00:46:00 - [23] - Quote I use a rail tank specifically to take out other tanks, that's what there meant for. The blaster tank has an advantage vs infantry, that's what it's for. You wanna mow down my team with impunity when there is still no better counter then another tank. Don't be surprised when I come and take you out with 80GJ of klickass. That said, I wouldn't be opposed to milita hulls, and turrets getting a rotation speed nerf. Henchmen21: Infantry Gotyougood Ufkr: Vehicles
Harpyja Molon Labe. Public Disorder. 1106	Posted - 2014.01.17 00:58:00 - [24] - Quote Henchmen21 wrote: I use a rail tank specifically to take out other tanks, that's what there meant for. The blaster tank has an advantage vs infantry, that's what it's for. You wanna mow down my team with impunity when there is still no better counter then another tank. Don't be surprised when I come and take you out with 80GJ of klickass. That said, I wouldn't be opposed to milita hulls, and turrets getting a rotation speed nerf. I run missiles majority of the time and railguns when I get annoyed. I have 0 SP into large blasters. So I'm the one that brings justice to those blaster tanks. But rail tanks shouldn't be able to just come up beside me and blow me apart, because then what's the point in missiles if blasters are better at AI and railguns are better at AV? Currently, the railgun is the go-to weapon for AV, because it wins 80% of the time at any range. There needs to be a choice when going AV. Either CQC-in-your-face missiles or long range railguns. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
Kigurosaka Laaksonen DUST University Ivy League 143	Posted - 2014.01.17 01:17:00 - [25] - Quote I'll pay more attention and do some messing around with tanks and the front vs. top mount small turret. The front turret is almost always useless. My option would always be a small top mounted blaster turret. Also, I didn't notice any way to change tank controls to separate turning from acceleration. I'll check that again. When I post here again, I will post definitively. These are the pressing concerns of our days. But seriously, if a rail tank has you down, hop in a blaster tank, come from around a building or something and circle around him. He literally can't hit you. On that note, Rail turret tracking is already so bad that it's faster to turn the tank itself. Making Rail turret tracking any slower won't have any more effect because you would just turn the tank. Edit: Fixed typos. DUST 514 Recruit Code - https://dust514.com/recruit/zluCyb/ EVE Buddy Invite - Too damn long. Ask me for it.
Henchmen21 Planet Express LLC 432	Posted - 2014.01.17 01:18:00 - [26] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Henchmen21 wrote: I use a rail tank specifically to take out other tanks, that's what there meant for. The blaster tank has an advantage vs infantry, that's what it's for. You wanna mow down my team with impunity when there is still no better counter then another tank. Don't be surprised when I come and take you out with 80GJ of klickass. That said, I wouldn't be opposed to milita hulls, and turrets getting a rotation speed nerf. I run missiles majority of the time and railguns when I get annoyed. I have 0 SP into large blasters. So I'm the one that brings justice to those blaster tanks. But rail tanks shouldn't be able to just come up beside me and blow me apart, because then what's the point in missiles if blasters are better at AI and railguns are better at AV? Currently, the railgun is the go-to weapon for AV, because it wins 80% of the time at any range. There needs to be a choice when going AV. Either CQC-in-your-face missiles or long range railguns. I suppose it depends on how you ended up in CQC, for me I made it a point to show up behind you unseen so I gave myself every advantage and I expect to win. If I blunder into a blaster tank I can lose just as easily as he can but I am not some super awesome tanker so there is that. Henchmen21: Infantry Gotyougood Ufkr: Vehicles
Harpyja Molon Labe. Public Disorder. 1106	Posted - 2014.01.17 02:16:00 - [27] - Quote Kigurosaka Laaksonen wrote: I'll pay more attention and do some messing around with tanks and the front vs. top mount small turret. The front turret is almost always useless. My option would always be a small top mounted blaster turret. Also, I didn't notice any way to change tank controls to separate turning from acceleration. I'll check that again. When I post here again, I will post definitively. These are the pressing concerns of our days. But seriously, if a rail tank has you down, hop in a blaster tank, come from around a building or something and circle around him. He literally can't hit you. On that note, Rail turret tracking is already so bad that it's faster to turn the tank itself. Making Rail turret tracking any slower won't have any more effect because you would just turn the tank. Edit: Fixed typos. Exactly why I suggest that charging or holding the charge on the railgun immobilizes you. Your turret would just track too slow to keep up and gives the other tank the opportunity to circle around you and avoid your railgun. Right now you just turn your tank (shield tanks) to compensate for the slow turret rotation. Or just drive in a straight line while shooting so the other person can't out-maneuver you (armor tanks). "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
Scout Registry 586	Posted - 2014.01.17 02:41:00 - [28] - Quote A Solution to Tank Spam: Militia Rail Tanks * Because nothing else works. Just for you, OP: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1729709#post1729709 scouts say no to quid pro quo
Operative 1171 Aajli Bragian Order Amarr Empire 1053	Posted - 2014.01.17 03:03:00 - [29] - Quote Harpyja wrote: What do you think about immobilizing the vehicle when a large railgun is being charged up or when the charge is being held? It's meant for long range, and just like the sniper, you stand still to be accurate at range. And just like the sniper, railguns should be outmatched at close range. I personally think that this change will help solve the issue of CQC rail tanks that can stomp on anything and giving other tanks that are meant for CQC a chance to outmaneuver the rail tank and win. Right now, the maneuverability of the tank hull allows for rail tanks to apply their damage at CQC. All that is needed is make it like it was in 1.6. Spools up, has to charge again after a shot and if you repeat fire it each shot does less damage after the first and it overheats after three shots. That was the one thing my gunnlogi could actually survive pre 1.7. Now I can't take but maybe three hits with hardeners on vs. the 10 or more on a maddy with hardeners off and dual reps. Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I read your book!
Auris Lionesse SVER True Blood Public Disorder. 60	Posted - 2014.01.17 03:21:00 - [30] - Quote I like how railgun tanks have bullet drop at far ranges where sniper rifles don't. lol



Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.