DUST Search - Anti infantry weapon all around buff

All Channels

General Discussions

Anti infantry weapon all around buff

» 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)
Text Grant Death Firm. Canis Eliminatus Operatives 295	Posted - 2014.01.20 04:49:00 - [1] - Quote With tanks as op as heck, let us surround them with anti infantry weapons and overwhelm them with 100% firepower. It won't make any difference to real tankers that don't run into the middle of the enemy to mow them down with a blaster. No more 10% when you look at a tank, also it will give us more opportunity to check for weak points with our normal weapons.
Beck Weathers Ghosts of Dawn General Tso's Alliance 335	Posted - 2014.01.20 04:51:00 - [2] - Quote Well I would prefer they add in the amarr and minmatar light anti tank weapons and see what nitch they preform. oh and buff plasma cannon.
Text Grant Death Firm. Canis Eliminatus Operatives 295	Posted - 2014.01.20 04:54:00 - [3] - Quote Buff plasma cannon, re's, proxies, swarms, av nades, and forge gun, but also make infantry weapons do 100%. Why wouldn't they do 100% in the first place?
Scalesdini BlackWater Liquidations INTERGALACTIC WARPIGS 269	Posted - 2014.01.20 04:55:00 - [4] - Quote Text Grant wrote: With tanks as op as heck, let us surround them with anti infantry weapons and overwhelm them with 100% firepower. It won't make any difference to real tankers that don't run into the middle of the enemy to mow them down with a blaster. No more 10% when you look at a tank, also it will give us more opportunity to check for weak points with our normal weapons. The business end of your crack pipe must be hot to the touch.
Text Grant Death Firm. Canis Eliminatus Operatives 295	Posted - 2014.01.20 05:00:00 - [5] - Quote Scalesdini wrote: Text Grant wrote: With tanks as op as heck, let us surround them with anti infantry weapons and overwhelm them with 100% firepower. It won't make any difference to real tankers that don't run into the middle of the enemy to mow them down with a blaster. No more 10% when you look at a tank, also it will give us more opportunity to check for weak points with our normal weapons. The business end of your crack pipe must be hot to the touch. You have so many good points there!
Borne Velvalor Endless Hatred 2203	Posted - 2014.01.20 06:36:00 - [6] - Quote Text Grant wrote: Buff plasma cannon, re's, proxies, swarms, av nades, and forge gun, but also make infantry weapons do 100%. Why wouldn't they do 100% in the first place? Because two, three guys with rifles could pop a tank in one clip? Many suits I've worn, many burdens I've borne, for the oaths I've sworn. Panda.
Joel II X Dah Gods O Bacon 599	Posted - 2014.01.20 06:39:00 - [7] - Quote LOL @ people asking for a buff to the Plasma Cannon. That thing doesn't need a buff, it needs a fix. Plenty of fixes, actually.
True Adamance Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 5932	Posted - 2014.01.20 06:42:00 - [8] - Quote Text Grant wrote: With tanks as op as heck, let us surround them with anti infantry weapons and overwhelm them with 100% firepower. It won't make any difference to real tankers that don't run into the middle of the enemy to mow them down with a blaster. No more 10% when you look at a tank, also it will give us more opportunity to check for weak points with our normal weapons. Why don't we just remove the blaster turret from HAV, nerf it slightly, put that turret on the MAV, and make HAV primarily anot vehicle units and heavy ordinance vehicles. "My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity."
NAV HIV The Generals General Tso's Alliance 825	Posted - 2014.01.20 14:50:00 - [9] - Quote Scalesdini wrote: Text Grant wrote: With tanks as op as heck, let us surround them with anti infantry weapons and overwhelm them with 100% firepower. It won't make any difference to real tankers that don't run into the middle of the enemy to mow them down with a blaster. No more 10% when you look at a tank, also it will give us more opportunity to check for weak points with our normal weapons. The business end of your crack pipe must be hot to the touch. LOL That ^
devonus durga P.L.A.N. B 130	Posted - 2014.01.20 15:01:00 - [10] - Quote I wouldn't say full 100% damage, but I do think more then 10% is in order. I mean we are firing future super weapons, meant to tear through any and all defenses. Heck sentinals are basicly small tanks with their HP at proto kevels. Or just buff AV grenades, like seriously, make them useful CCP! Newbiest newberry to ever spawn a 10 page Debate

Bethhy Ancient Exiles. Renegade Alliance 884	Posted - 2014.01.20 15:04:00 - [11] - Quote So the armor and shields of a tank wouldn't reduce infantry based weapon damage significantly you think? it should register as if your hitting another infantry? Seems like your looking at this from only one angle.
Text Grant Death Firm. Canis Eliminatus Operatives 295	Posted - 2014.01.20 20:31:00 - [12] - Quote Bethhy wrote: So the armor and shields of a tank wouldn't reduce infantry based weapon damage significantly you think? it should register as if your hitting another infantry? Seems like your looking at this from only one angle. Its not like shooting a tank with your AR would do that much of a dent to a tank anyway. This is only to help prevent tanks rolling into the middle of reds and leveling everything with their blasters. I can't think of one reason why this would make any difference in any other situation.
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. Public Disorder. 2536	Posted - 2014.01.20 20:36:00 - [13] - Quote If they buffed the swarms 25% on top of 1.6 levels AND increased flight time by 2x, I don't think they'd be effective. ML Director Eve Toon - Raylan Scott
Jason Pearson 4052	Posted - 2014.01.20 20:43:00 - [14] - Quote Thor Odinson42 wrote: If they buffed the swarms 25% on top of 1.6 levels AND increased flight time by 2x, I don't think they'd be effective. lol? You ***** terribads. Listen here you massive scrubs, CCP should not balance based off of the experience of terrible players, I'm sorry but I'm sick of this. "WAAAAH TANKS ARE OP" and yet running proto swarms with triple complex mods will wreck armor tanks.. "WAAAH THE TANK FLASHES AND IT RUNS AWAY AND I CAN'T KILL IT!", man up.. "ALL LAVS SHOULD DIE BY ME LOOKING AT IT WITH A STERN LOOK!" Yeah, you forgot about LAVs didn't you, ***** idiots, HAVs aren't the only thing in this game, there's a reason people don't use LAVs any more, because they're treated as throwaway vehicles, except my LAV costs near 100k a time and get's wrecked instantly. If CCP listens to stupid players, it'll just show how bad they are as a developer. AND STOP FIRING EXPLOSIVES AT A SHIELD TANK. jaysus. King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire \\ Bad Mathematician You're a total git, Jason. - kingbabar
The Attorney General 1825	Posted - 2014.01.20 20:43:00 - [15] - Quote How is it that people are calling for buffs to AV nades? Are you guys just that bad? Everytime I use AV nades they work great, how are you guys not able to use them? Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
Text Grant Death Firm. Canis Eliminatus Operatives 295	Posted - 2014.01.20 20:46:00 - [16] - Quote The Attorney General wrote: How is it that people are calling for buffs to AV nades? Are you guys just that bad? Everytime I use AV nades they work great, how are you guys not able to use them? This post is actually asking for peoples opinions on every weapon doing 100% damage to tanks. Or 90% or whatever it would be doing to shields/armor regularly.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution Covert Intervention 8137	Posted - 2014.01.20 20:48:00 - [17] - Quote Jason Pearson wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: If they buffed the swarms 25% on top of 1.6 levels AND increased flight time by 2x, I don't think they'd be effective. lol? You ***** terribads. Listen here you massive scrubs, CCP should not balance based off of the experience of terrible players, I'm sorry but I'm sick of this. "WAAAAH TANKS ARE OP" and yet running proto swarms with triple complex mods will wreck armor tanks.. "WAAAH THE TANK FLASHES AND IT RUNS AWAY AND I CAN'T KILL IT!", man up.. "ALL LAVS SHOULD DIE BY ME LOOKING AT IT WITH A STERN LOOK!" Yeah, you forgot about LAVs didn't you, ***** idiots, HAVs aren't the only thing in this game, there's a reason people don't use LAVs any more, because they're treated as throwaway vehicles, except my LAV costs near 100k a time and get's wrecked instantly. If CCP listens to stupid players, it'll just show how bad they are as a developer. AND STOP FIRING EXPLOSIVES AT A SHIELD TANK. jaysus. The only anti-shield AV weapon is the plasma cannon. Good luck taking down a decent shield tank with that. Hell, it struggles with a Sica. Also, if you're losing LAVs to infantry AV you must be incredibly bad. I've lost LAVs to tanks and installations. Never infantry AV, ever. And if you're only losing LAVs to tanks and you're whining about them being fragile, that only illustrates the point further. Level 8 Forum Warrior Lenin of the glorious armoured revolution
Text Grant Death Firm. Canis Eliminatus Operatives 295	Posted - 2014.01.20 20:51:00 - [18] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Jason Pearson wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: If they buffed the swarms 25% on top of 1.6 levels AND increased flight time by 2x, I don't think they'd be effective. lol? You ***** terribads. Listen here you massive scrubs, CCP should not balance based off of the experience of terrible players, I'm sorry but I'm sick of this. "WAAAAH TANKS ARE OP" and yet running proto swarms with triple complex mods will wreck armor tanks.. "WAAAH THE TANK FLASHES AND IT RUNS AWAY AND I CAN'T KILL IT!", man up.. "ALL LAVS SHOULD DIE BY ME LOOKING AT IT WITH A STERN LOOK!" Yeah, you forgot about LAVs didn't you, ***** idiots, HAVs aren't the only thing in this game, there's a reason people don't use LAVs any more, because they're treated as throwaway vehicles, except my LAV costs near 100k a time and get's wrecked instantly. If CCP listens to stupid players, it'll just show how bad they are as a developer. AND STOP FIRING EXPLOSIVES AT A SHIELD TANK. jaysus. The only anti-shield AV weapon is the plasma cannon. Good luck taking down a decent shield tank with that. Hell, it struggles with a Sica. Also, if you're losing LAVs to infantry AV you must be incredibly bad. I've lost LAVs to tanks and installations. Never infantry AV, ever. And if you're only losing LAVs to tanks and you're whining about them being fragile, that only illustrates the point further. I usually ignore trolls. good luck on that fight though. You may have used too much logic for him.
The Attorney General 1828	Posted - 2014.01.20 20:52:00 - [19] - Quote Text Grant wrote: The Attorney General wrote: How is it that people are calling for buffs to AV nades? Are you guys just that bad? Everytime I use AV nades they work great, how are you guys not able to use them? This post is actually asking for peoples opinions on every weapon doing 100% damage to tanks. Or 90% or whatever it would be doing to shields/armor regularly. And yet, in your second post you call for buffs to ALL AV, including AV nades. You opened the door, I merely walked through it. Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
Text Grant Death Firm. Canis Eliminatus Operatives 295	Posted - 2014.01.20 20:56:00 - [20] - Quote The Attorney General wrote: Text Grant wrote: The Attorney General wrote: How is it that people are calling for buffs to AV nades? Are you guys just that bad? Everytime I use AV nades they work great, how are you guys not able to use them? This post is actually asking for peoples opinions on every weapon doing 100% damage to tanks. Or 90% or whatever it would be doing to shields/armor regularly. And yet, in your second post you call for buffs to ALL AV, including AV nades. You opened the door, I merely walked through it. I was just pointing out that its not really what i came to talk about to him. Whatever he thinks should be buffed should be put into his own thread with valid arguments. Although I would like to hear a competent tankers opinion on normal weapons doing normal damage to vehicles.

Jason Pearson 4052	Posted - 2014.01.20 20:56:00 - [21] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Jason Pearson wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: If they buffed the swarms 25% on top of 1.6 levels AND increased flight time by 2x, I don't think they'd be effective. lol? You ***** terribads. Listen here you massive scrubs, CCP should not balance based off of the experience of terrible players, I'm sorry but I'm sick of this. "WAAAAH TANKS ARE OP" and yet running proto swarms with triple complex mods will wreck armor tanks.. "WAAAH THE TANK FLASHES AND IT RUNS AWAY AND I CAN'T KILL IT!", man up.. "ALL LAVS SHOULD DIE BY ME LOOKING AT IT WITH A STERN LOOK!" Yeah, you forgot about LAVs didn't you, *** idiots, HAVs aren't the only thing in this game, there's a reason people don't use LAVs any more, because they're treated as throwaway vehicles, except my LAV costs near 100k a time and get's wrecked instantly. If CCP listens to stupid players, it'll just show how bad they are as a developer. AND STOP FIRING EXPLOSIVES AT A SHIELD TANK. jaysus. The only anti-shield AV weapon is the plasma cannon. Good luck taking down a decent shield tank with that. Hell, it struggles with a Sica. Also, if you're losing LAVs to infantry AV you must be incredibly bad. I've lost LAVs to tanks and installations. Never infantry AV, ever. And if you're only losing LAVs to tanks and you're whining about them being fragile, that only illustrates the point further. Use a Forge against Shields, it might be weaker but due to shields being weaker than armor, two shots will take them out quite fast. I sat on a roof yesterday and devastated four tanks trying to push up. My furthest kill was 280m, it's still very effective but now it cannot dominate the map, just an area. Also, please, teach me how to tank out an LAV, oh mighty lord Arkena. I lose tanks to AV still, I kill tanks with AV still and if you can aim LAVs are easy as **, especially due to their low HP it means their resists don't work as well as other vehicles. King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire \\ Bad Mathematician You're a total git, Jason. - kingbabar
The Attorney General 1828	Posted - 2014.01.20 20:57:00 - [22] - Quote Text Grant wrote: Buff plasma cannon, re's, proxies, swarms, av nades, and forge gun, but also make infantry weapons do 100%. Why wouldn't they do 100% in the first place? So you want buffs to all AV weapons AND you want anti infantry weapons to do 100% damage to an armored vehicle? Seems like a totally reasonable suggestion, but I assume you are going to make the blaster a one hit kill to compensate right? Or are you just mad because you can't tackle a tank and think that because you are stupid CCP should cater to you? Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
Eltra Ardell Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 293	Posted - 2014.01.20 20:58:00 - [23] - Quote Text Grant wrote: Buff plasma cannon, re's, proxies, swarms, av nades, and forge gun, but also make infantry weapons do 100%. Why wouldn't they do 100% in the first place? Why would an assault rifle be effective against an armored vehicle?
Text Grant Death Firm. Canis Eliminatus Operatives 297	Posted - 2014.01.20 21:01:00 - [24] - Quote The Attorney General wrote: Text Grant wrote: Buff plasma cannon, re's, proxies, swarms, av nades, and forge gun, but also make infantry weapons do 100%. Why wouldn't they do 100% in the first place? So you want buffs to all AV weapons AND you want anti infantry weapons to do 100% damage to an armored vehicle? Seems like a totally reasonable suggestion, but I assume you are going to make the blaster a one hit kill to compensate right? Or are you just mad because you can't tackle a tank and think that because you are stupid CCP should cater to you? I kill tanks all the time. But the easiest ways to do it is with a tank or RE's. But that is NOT the point of this thread. Now you can insult me all day or make a viable argument as to why normal weapons would do 10% damage to tanks.
Text Grant Death Firm. Canis Eliminatus Operatives 297	Posted - 2014.01.20 21:02:00 - [25] - Quote Eltra Ardell wrote: Text Grant wrote: Buff plasma cannon, re's, proxies, swarms, av nades, and forge gun, but also make infantry weapons do 100%. Why wouldn't they do 100% in the first place? Why would an assault rifle be effective against an armored vehicle? An assault rifle wouldn't be effective against an HAV even if it was 100% so I don't follow your logic
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution Covert Intervention 8139	Posted - 2014.01.20 21:03:00 - [26] - Quote Jason Pearson wrote: Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Jason Pearson wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: If they buffed the swarms 25% on top of 1.6 levels AND increased flight time by 2x, I don't think they'd be effective. lol? You ***** terribads. Listen here you massive scrubs, CCP should not balance based off of the experience of terrible players, I'm sorry but I'm sick of this. "WAAAAH TANKS ARE OP" and yet running proto swarms with triple complex mods will wreck armor tanks.. "WAAAH THE TANK FLASHES AND IT RUNS AWAY AND I CAN'T KILL IT!", man up.. "ALL LAVS SHOULD DIE BY ME LOOKING AT IT WITH A STERN LOOK!" Yeah, you forgot about LAVs didn't you, *** idiots, HAVs aren't the only thing in this game, there's a reason people don't use LAVs any more, because they're treated as throwaway vehicles, except my LAV costs near 100k a time and get's wrecked instantly. If CCP listens to stupid players, it'll just show how bad they are as a developer. AND STOP FIRING EXPLOSIVES AT A SHIELD TANK. jaysus. The only anti-shield AV weapon is the plasma cannon. Good luck taking down a decent shield tank with that. Hell, it struggles with a Sica. Also, if you're losing LAVs to infantry AV you must be incredibly bad. I've lost LAVs to tanks and installations. Never infantry AV, ever. And if you're only losing LAVs to tanks and you're whining about them being fragile, that only illustrates the point further. Use a Forge against Shields, it might be weaker but due to shields being weaker than armor, two shots will take them out quite fast. I sat on a roof yesterday and devastated four tanks trying to push up. My furthest kill was 280m, it's still very effective but now it cannot dominate the map, just an area. Also, please, teach me how to tank out an LAV, oh mighty lord Arkena. I lose tanks to AV still, I kill tanks with AV still and if you can aim LAVs are easy as **, especially due to their low HP it means their resists don't work as well as other vehicles. Methana + hardener and rep. I honestly have yet to lose one to infantry AV despite extensive doom taxi'ing. Level 8 Forum Warrior Lenin of the glorious armoured revolution
The Attorney General 1832	Posted - 2014.01.20 21:04:00 - [27] - Quote Text Grant wrote: I kill tanks all the time. But the easiest ways to do it is with a tank or RE's. But that is NOT the point of this thread. Now you can insult me all day or make a viable argument as to why normal weapons would do 10% damage to tanks. Because they are infantry weapons and vehicles are designed to be resistant to small arms fire. Go and read the descriptions muppet. Now, defend your statement about wanting all AV buffed to go along with having your rifle turn into a ****** AV weapon. If you think it is easier to kil atank with RE's than a forge, you are really, really bad. No wonder you need all this help to try and take out tanks. You must be awful. Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
Jason Pearson 4052	Posted - 2014.01.20 21:04:00 - [28] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Jason Pearson wrote: Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Jason Pearson wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: If they buffed the swarms 25% on top of 1.6 levels AND increased flight time by 2x, I don't think they'd be effective. lol? You ***** terribads. Listen here you massive scrubs, CCP should not balance based off of the experience of terrible players, I'm sorry but I'm sick of this. "WAAAAH TANKS ARE OP" and yet running proto swarms with triple complex mods will wreck armor tanks.. "WAAAH THE TANK FLASHES AND IT RUNS AWAY AND I CAN'T KILL IT!", man up.. "ALL LAVS SHOULD DIE BY ME LOOKING AT IT WITH A STERN LOOK!" Yeah, you forgot about LAVs didn't you, *** idiots, HAVs aren't the only thing in this game, there's a reason people don't use LAVs any more, because they're treated as throwaway vehicles, except my LAV costs near 100k a time and get's wrecked instantly. If CCP listens to stupid players, it'll just show how bad they are as a developer. AND STOP FIRING EXPLOSIVES AT A SHIELD TANK. jaysus. The only anti-shield AV weapon is the plasma cannon. Good luck taking down a decent shield tank with that. Hell, it struggles with a Sica. Also, if you're losing LAVs to infantry AV you must be incredibly bad. I've lost LAVs to tanks and installations. Never infantry AV, ever. And if you're only losing LAVs to tanks and you're whining about them being fragile, that only illustrates the point further. Use a Forge against Shields, it might be weaker but due to shields being weaker than armor, two shots will take them out quite fast. I sat on a roof yesterday and devastated four tanks trying to push up. My furthest kill was 280m, it's still very effective but now it cannot dominate the map, just an area. Also, please, teach me how to tank out an LAV, oh mighty lord Arkena. I lose tanks to AV still, I kill tanks with AV still and if you can aim LAVs are easy as **, especially due to their low HP it means their resists don't work as well as other vehicles. Methana + hardener and rep. I honestly have yet to lose one to infantry AV despite extensive doom taxi'ing. Bring it out next time you're in my match, Methanas die fast to the swarms I'm running. King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire \\ Bad Mathematician You're a total git, Jason. - kingbabar
Text Grant Death Firm. Canis Eliminatus Operatives 297	Posted - 2014.01.20 21:07:00 - [29] - Quote The Attorney General wrote: Text Grant wrote: I kill tanks all the time. But the easiest ways to do it is with a tank or RE's. But that is NOT the point of this thread. Now you can insult me all day or make a viable argument as to why normal weapons would do 10% damage to tanks. Because they are infantry weapons and vehicles are designed to be resistant to small arms fire. Go and read the descriptions muppet. Now, defend your statement about wanting all AV buffed to go along with having your rifle turn into a ****** AV weapon. If you think it is easier to kil atank with RE's than a forge, you are really, really bad. No wonder you need all this help to try and take out tanks. You must be awful. It is easier to kill them with RE's than a forge. Because they are usually spammed all over the map by crap tankers that only use them because they are cheaper than their normal assault fit. If you can't admit there are many problems with vehicles in their current state then you are just trolling me.
The Attorney General 1834	Posted - 2014.01.20 21:11:00 - [30] - Quote Text Grant wrote: It is easier to kill them with RE's than a forge. Because they are usually spammed all over the map by crap tankers that only use them because they are cheaper than their normal assault fit. If you can't admit there are many problems with vehicles in their current state then you are just trolling me. Of course there are problems, however your solutions are absolutely horrible. In fact, they are nothing more than the moanings of a scrub. If the RE's trap is all you have, then become friends with a real AV'er and then you won't be complaining at being ineffective. Mr. Hybrid Vayu.

gbghg L.O.T.I.S. D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 4375	Posted - 2014.01.20 21:14:00 - [31] - Quote Joel II X wrote: LOL @ people asking for a buff to the Plasma Cannon. That thing doesn't need a buff, it needs a fix. Plenty of fixes, actually. tbh it needs a miracle. Lv 4 forum warrior Bringer of Bacon Knight of AMV's
Text Grant Death Firm. Canis Eliminatus Operatives 298	Posted - 2014.01.20 21:16:00 - [32] - Quote The Attorney General wrote: Text Grant wrote: It is easier to kill them with RE's than a forge. Because they are usually spammed all over the map by crap tankers that only use them because they are cheaper than their normal assault fit. If you can't admit there are many problems with vehicles in their current state then you are just trolling me. Of course there are problems, however your solutions are absolutely horrible. In fact, they are nothing more than the moanings of a scrub. If the RE's trap is all you have, then become friends with a real AV'er and then you won't be complaining at being ineffective. I don't RE trap. I put 4 on the back of the tank and run away as it goes boom. The easiest AV that I have used though is a gunlogi with a railgun and damage mods. But since you obviously can't do anything but throw insults I no longer care for your opinion troll :)
gbghg L.O.T.I.S. D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 4375	Posted - 2014.01.20 21:19:00 - [33] - Quote Text Grant wrote: Eltra Ardell wrote: Text Grant wrote: Buff plasma cannon, re's, proxies, swarms, av nades, and forge gun, but also make infantry weapons do 100%. Why wouldn't they do 100% in the first place? Why would an assault rifle be effective against an armored vehicle? An assault rifle wouldn't be effective against an HAV even if it was 100% so I don't follow your logic actually yes it would, rifles have stupid dps, several guys would be a serious threat to a vehicle. and you say an ar wouldnt be effective against tanks yet you want them to have 100% efficiency against them? Lv 4 forum warrior Bringer of Bacon Knight of AMV's
Text Grant Death Firm. Canis Eliminatus Operatives 302	Posted - 2014.01.20 21:22:00 - [34] - Quote gbghg wrote: Text Grant wrote: Eltra Ardell wrote: Text Grant wrote: Buff plasma cannon, re's, proxies, swarms, av nades, and forge gun, but also make infantry weapons do 100%. Why wouldn't they do 100% in the first place? Why would an assault rifle be effective against an armored vehicle? An assault rifle wouldn't be effective against an HAV even if it was 100% so I don't follow your logic actually yes it would, rifles have stupid dps, several guys would be a serious threat to a vehicle. and you say an ar wouldnt be effective against tanks yet you want them to have 100% efficiency against them? Exactly. A tank should still not want to just run around without infantry support to kill all the reds by themselves. All I really am looking for is some way to make infantry still needed on the field. So 6 tanks are not guaranteed to be better than 6 infantry the way they currently are.
The Attorney General 1835	Posted - 2014.01.20 21:31:00 - [35] - Quote Text Grant wrote: Exactly. A tank should still not want to just run around without infantry support to kill all the reds by themselves. All I really am looking for is some way to make infantry still needed on the field. So 6 tanks are not guaranteed to be better than 6 infantry the way they currently are. So in your opinion, five guys dumping rifle ammo into a tank should be the new av? You can call me a troll, but you can't be serious. There is no way this is a legitimate suggestion. I am an infantry man, my rifle should work on everything. Ok, so then we can take out all the AV to compensate for every infantryman now packing almost 1000 dps vs vehicles right? Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
Text Grant Death Firm. Canis Eliminatus Operatives 308	Posted - 2014.01.20 22:46:00 - [36] - Quote The Attorney General wrote: Text Grant wrote: Exactly. A tank should still not want to just run around without infantry support to kill all the reds by themselves. All I really am looking for is some way to make infantry still needed on the field. So 6 tanks are not guaranteed to be better than 6 infantry the way they currently are. So in your opinion, five guys dumping rifle ammo into a tank should be the new av? You can call me a troll, but you can't be serious. There is no way this is a legitimate suggestion. I am an infantry man, my rifle should work on everything. Ok, so then we can take out all the AV to compensate for every infantryman now packing almost 1000 dps vs vehicles right? Then please give a good idea for how to bring tanks more in line so having 3+ tanks on a map doesn't guarantee a win? I personally like having a little bit of a reason to be infantry in a FPS.
Text Grant Death Firm. Canis Eliminatus Operatives 308	Posted - 2014.01.20 23:02:00 - [37] - Quote The Attorney General wrote: Text Grant wrote: Exactly. A tank should still not want to just run around without infantry support to kill all the reds by themselves. All I really am looking for is some way to make infantry still needed on the field. So 6 tanks are not guaranteed to be better than 6 infantry the way they currently are. So in your opinion, five guys dumping rifle ammo into a tank should be the new av? You can call me a troll, but you can't be serious. There is no way this is a legitimate suggestion. I am an infantry man, my rifle should work on everything. Ok, so then we can take out all the AV to compensate for every infantryman now packing almost 1000 dps vs vehicles right? Although if you would rather... I'm perfectly okay with every tank and Anti tank weapon doing 10% damage to infantry.
The Attorney General 1848	Posted - 2014.01.20 23:04:00 - [38] - Quote Text Grant wrote: Then please give a good idea for how to bring tanks more in line so having 3+ tanks on a map doesn't guarantee a win? I personally like having a little bit of a reason to be infantry in a FPS. The only way having three tanks assures a win is if the other team has no consideration for the fact that every game has tanks in it. If you don't have real AV in your squad at all times, that is just as much a faux pas as not having a logi. So either always roll with an AV guy, or always roll with a tank. If you don't practice combined arms, then combined arms will wreck you. That is a choice you make at the start of every match. If you don't think infantry has a place, then how do you figure that points get hacked, and matches get won? Who fights it out in the interior of buildings and large sockets? No there is a place for infantry, just like there is a place for tanks. I think that you just can't accept that something other than infantry owns the open spaces. Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
The Attorney General 1848	Posted - 2014.01.20 23:06:00 - [39] - Quote Text Grant wrote: Although if you would rather... I'm perfectly okay with every tank and Anti tank weapon doing 10% damage to infantry. OK, so you don't want balance, you just want tanks to leave you alone. Just go play a game without vehicles if they bother you so much. Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
Text Grant Death Firm. Canis Eliminatus Operatives 308	Posted - 2014.01.20 23:21:00 - [40] - Quote The Attorney General wrote: Text Grant wrote: Then please give a good idea for how to bring tanks more in line so having 3+ tanks on a map doesn't guarantee a win? I personally like having a little bit of a reason to be infantry in a FPS. The only way having three tanks assures a win is if the other team has no consideration for the fact that every game has tanks in it. If you don't have real AV in your squad at all times, that is just as much a faux pas as not having a logi. So either always roll with an AV guy, or always roll with a tank. If you don't practice combined arms, then combined arms will wreck you. That is a choice you make at the start of every match. If you don't think infantry has a place, then how do you figure that points get hacked, and matches get won? Who fights it out in the interior of buildings and large sockets? No there is a place for infantry, just like there is a place for tanks. I think that you just can't accept that something other than infantry owns the open spaces. You make no valid points, and bring no discussion to the table. Everyone knows tanks are not in the right place, and just because you run tanks makes you want them to be kings of the battlefield does not warrant them being so.

The Attorney General 1857	Posted - 2014.01.21 01:01:00 - [41] - Quote Text Grant wrote: You make no valid points, and bring no discussion to the table. Everyone knows tanks are not in the right place, and just because you run tanks makes you want them to be kings of the battlefield does not warrant them being so. Your argument is what? That every person with a rifle should be an AV troop? That is your idea of balance? Where every person on the field can deal 800+ DPS to a vehicle? Indeed I run tanks, but I also play as a heavy on an alt, that specializes in running AV. I have no problem destroying tanks at all. That you struggle, and consequentially decide that tanks need to be nerfed is not a sign of tanks being OP, but rather that you are bad. Now, could AV use certain buffs? Of course, as I have made plain when I have previously called for swarms to get 10% more damage, the PLC to get a series of buffs, and for the forge to get its charge time reduced. I have also advocated for large blasters to have their range cut by at least 30%. Dropping top speed by 5% and acceleration by 10%. See, those are compelling arguments, and balanced changes, but you see the difference between us is that I do not look at it from a single side. I understand both vehicular and anti-vehicle play. So you keep being a crybaby, but don't think that you are actually putting forth a reasonable idea, because all you are doing is saying that because you are a scrub and can't take down a tank, that tanks shouldn't be a threat to you. Stop saying things like "everyone knows" You are not qualified to speak about what everyone wants. Do not make an appeal to the masses, it is a fallacious method of arguing. Now, if you cannot put forth a reasonable suggestion, why not just admit that you are a scrub and that you need CCP to make the game easy for you again. Because that is all these posts make plain. You are not competent to handle things like thinking and tactics, so you need the developer to take them out of the equation so you don't feel bad about getting your **** pushed in match after match. Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
Rusty Shallows 849	Posted - 2014.01.21 01:38:00 - [42] - Quote Thor Odinson42 wrote: If they buffed the swarms 25% on top of 1.6 levels AND increased flight time by 2x, I don't think they'd be effective. Oooooooor we can throw Dropship pilots a bone and nerf the high holy heck out of Large Rails until they are at the same level as all other AV. Then CCP can focus on Hardener/Rep balance. As to the main topic the very first days of Uprising 1.0 was a very scary place for anything vehicle related. While Hardeners would help mitigate it I can just see groups of Rail Rifles and Scrambler Rifles obliterating the unwary. Decloaking scout squads nearly insta-gibbing anything. An ocean of tears. Might be good for the first ten minutes of laughter. After that the more decent folk will feel bad. Here, have some candy and a Like. :-) Forums > Game
Aizen Intiki Hell's Gate Inc League of Infamy 716	Posted - 2014.01.21 01:47:00 - [43] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Text Grant wrote: With tanks as op as heck, let us surround them with anti infantry weapons and overwhelm them with 100% firepower. It won't make any difference to real tankers that don't run into the middle of the enemy to mow them down with a blaster. No more 10% when you look at a tank, also it will give us more opportunity to check for weak points with our normal weapons. Why don't we just remove the blaster turret from HAV, nerf it slightly, put that turret on the MAV, and make HAV primarily anot vehicle units and heavy ordinance vehicles. I refuse. "Hello, world!" lol, sounds like something a whore lover would say Alt of the great Godin I like chocolate ^___^
Aizen Intiki Hell's Gate Inc League of Infamy 716	Posted - 2014.01.21 01:49:00 - [44] - Quote devonus durga wrote: I wouldn't say full 100% damage, but I do think more then 10% is in order. I mean we are firing future super weapons, meant to tear through any and all defenses. Heck sentinals are basicly small tanks with their HP at proto kevels. Or just buff AV grenades, like seriously, make them useful CCP! It's basically the same concept as trying to shoot through a modern day tank with a M16. Not going to happen, as the armor is too thick. So no, 10% makes sense. "Hello, world!" lol, sounds like something a whore lover would say Alt of the great Godin I like chocolate ^___^
Rusty Shallows 849	Posted - 2014.01.21 01:51:00 - [45] - Quote Borne Velvalor wrote: Text Grant wrote: Buff plasma cannon, re's, proxies, swarms, av nades, and forge gun, but also make infantry weapons do 100%. Why wouldn't they do 100% in the first place? Because two, three guys with rifles could pop a tank in one clip? This. I just had to throw out the cloaky scout tank-hunting squads. Sorry. Here, have some candy and a Like. :-) Forums > Game
Aizen Intiki Hell's Gate Inc League of Infamy 716	Posted - 2014.01.21 01:52:00 - [46] - Quote Thor Odinson42 wrote: If they buffed the swarms 25% on top of 1.6 levels AND increased flight time by 2x, I don't think they'd be effective. Hell no. swarms on the winmatar commando would be insanely OP at that point. you really want over 2.5k damage and a 800 m flight range per swarm? Get out. "Hello, world!" lol, sounds like something a whore lover would say Alt of the great Godin I like chocolate ^___^
gbghg L.O.T.I.S. D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 4388	Posted - 2014.01.21 02:00:00 - [47] - Quote Rusty Shallows wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: If they buffed the swarms 25% on top of 1.6 levels AND increased flight time by 2x, I don't think they'd be effective. Oooooooor we can throw Dropship pilots a bone and nerf the high holy heck out of Large Rails until they are at the same level as all other AV. Then CCP can focus on Hardener/Rep balance. As to the main topic the very first days of Uprising 1.0 was a very scary place for anything vehicle related. While Hardeners would help mitigate it I can just see groups of Rail Rifles and Scrambler Rifles obliterating the unwary. Decloaking scout squads nearly insta-gibbing anything. An ocean of tears. Might be good for the first ten minutes of laughter. After that the more decent folk will feel bad. bloody TAR's, i remember laughing as they started shooting my python, then backing off very quickly as my shields hit 80%. Lv 4 forum warrior Bringer of Bacon Knight of AMV's
Darken-Soul Tal-Romon Legion Amarr Empire 44	Posted - 2014.01.21 02:04:00 - [48] - Quote Bethhy wrote: So the armor and shields of a tank wouldn't reduce infantry based weapon damage significantly you think? it should register as if your hitting another infantry? Seems like your looking at this from only one angle. do tank shields use different technology? Are the metals used in the hull unavailable for use in dropsuit armor? I am the real Darken
Aizen Intiki Hell's Gate Inc League of Infamy 716	Posted - 2014.01.21 02:26:00 - [49] - Quote Darken-Soul wrote: Bethhy wrote: So the armor and shields of a tank wouldn't reduce infantry based weapon damage significantly you think? it should register as if your hitting another infantry? Seems like your looking at this from only one angle. do tank shields use different technology? Are the metals used in the hull unavailable for use in dropsuit armor? No, they're just much more powerful versions. "Hello, world!" lol, sounds like something a whore lover would say Alt of the great Godin I like chocolate ^___^
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. Public Disorder. 2537	Posted - 2014.01.21 03:13:00 - [50] - Quote Jason Pearson wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: If they buffed the swarms 25% on top of 1.6 levels AND increased flight time by 2x, I don't think they'd be effective. lol? You ***** terribads. Listen here you massive scrubs, CCP should not balance based off of the experience of terrible players, I'm sorry but I'm sick of this. "WAAAAH TANKS ARE OP" and yet running proto swarms with triple complex mods will wreck armor tanks.. "WAAAH THE TANK FLASHES AND IT RUNS AWAY AND I CAN'T KILL IT!", man up.. "ALL LAVS SHOULD DIE BY ME LOOKING AT IT WITH A STERN LOOK!" Yeah, you forgot about LAVs didn't you, *** idiots, HAVs aren't the only thing in this game, there's a reason people don't use LAVs any more, because they're treated as throwaway vehicles, except my LAV costs near 100k a time and get's wrecked instantly. If CCP listens to stupid players, it'll just show how bad they are as a developer. AND STOP FIRING EXPLOSIVES AT A SHIELD TANK. jaysus. I thought it was pretty clear I was exaggerating, but go ** yourself ML Director Eve Toon - Raylan Scott

Borne Velvalor Endless Hatred 2223	Posted - 2014.01.21 03:13:00 - [51] - Quote Darken-Soul wrote: Bethhy wrote: So the armor and shields of a tank wouldn't reduce infantry based weapon damage significantly you think? it should register as if your hitting another infantry? Seems like your looking at this from only one angle. do tank shields use different technology? Are the metals used in the hull unavailable for use in dropsuit armor? The numerical values for HP are an arbitrary representation of strength that can be scaled. OK, all infantry weapons are 100% effective against vehicles now. Great. In exchange, all vehicles have fifteen times the health and Forge Guns, Swarm Launchers, AV Grenades and all turrets gain 1500% effectiveness against vehicles, because their munitions are made to penetrate heavy armor and shields. Also, no, not all armor reacts the same to all weapons. Some armor may be almost impervious to small arms fire while a penetrating round will blow a hole in it. There are many factors in play, including density. Your problem is with the representation of this fact. I'm pretty sure an 80GJ RAILGUN shot from a CANNON the length of three men is going to deal more than 10 times the damage of a breach pistol, which is all it does now. Also, yes, they are unavailable for dropsuit armor. Unless you're telling me that it's feasible to strap scifi tank armor to the chest of an infantryman. Plates use an enormous amount of CPU and PG to fit; one plate costs more PG to fit than dropsuits have. How would the infantryman get enough power to wield it? It's a tank. It has a generator inside it and an engine to drive it. Many suits I've worn, many burdens I've borne, for the oaths I've sworn. Panda.
Borne Velvalor Endless Hatred 2223	Posted - 2014.01.21 03:16:00 - [52] - Quote Also, if you think tanks having better armor/shields than infantry is unfeasible still, you must also think it is stupid that we can't strap the armor and shields of the MCC on to a Heavy and let him have ten trillion HP and immunity to all weapons except null cannons. Many suits I've worn, many burdens I've borne, for the oaths I've sworn. Panda.
RemingtonBeaver Molon Labe. Public Disorder. 49	Posted - 2014.01.21 03:23:00 - [53] - Quote They could just add a RDV disabled version of ambush, then the ground guys could practice their ground game without tankers mucking it up and the tankers could play the RDV enabled ambush mode and crash their tanks into each other. Simple fix. We can pickle that.
knight of 6 SVER True Blood Public Disorder. 1190	Posted - 2014.01.21 03:42:00 - [54] - Quote you know it's funny, tankers always joke about infantry wanting to take down their tanks with ARs but none of that was ever serious and I never took it seriously. now that OP has honest to god wants to AR tanks to death i find myself at a loss for words... "God favors the side with the best artillery" ~ Napoleon Ko6, scout. CLOSED BETA VET


Pages: 1 2 :: [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.