DUST Search - If tankers insist that it should take 2+ ppl to kill them....

All Channels

General Discussions

If tankers insist that it should take 2+ ppl to kill them....

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
OverIord Ulath Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 8	Posted - 2014.01.26 01:10:00 - [1] - Quote Then shouldn't they require the same number of people to run their tanks? I mean... If you are taking 3 people's attention away from focusing on winning the match just to deal with you, shouldn't you require the same number of people to distract them?
buzzzzzzz killllllllll TRA1LBLAZERS 68	Posted - 2014.01.26 01:12:00 - [2] - Quote ccp should make it so the driver can only use the front turret, and a gunner can use the large turret
Mdog 24158 Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 103	Posted - 2014.01.26 01:13:00 - [3] - Quote OverIord Ulath wrote: Then shouldn't they require the same number of people to run their tanks? I mean... If you are taking 3 people's attention away from focusing on winning the match just to deal with you, shouldn't you require the same number of people to distract them? Yes it should because if you call in 6 tanks plus however many infantry people to fight against 12 to 16 av people its just not possible OMFG LEAKED PATCH NOTES EVERYONE TYPE RAGE POSTS
DeadlyAztec11 Ostrakon Agency Gallente Federation 3564	Posted - 2014.01.26 01:16:00 - [4] - Quote buzzzzzzz killllllllll wrote: ccp should make it so the driver can only use the front turret, and a gunner can use the large turret Boom. Tanker Logic. My alts: General John Ripper, Draxus Prime, MoonEagle A, Anarchide, Long Evity And this is why I am the #1 forum warrior
OverIord Ulath Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 9	Posted - 2014.01.26 01:21:00 - [5] - Quote DeadlyAztec11 wrote: buzzzzzzz killllllllll wrote: ccp should make it so the driver can only use the front turret, and a gunner can use the large turret Boom. Tanker Logic. Wait a minute.... I know another alt of Long Evity..... and he's.... WAIT A MINUTE..... .......no.... it couldn't be... WAIT A MINUTE.... Are you.... a fan of anime.....?
Azura Sakura Altyr Initiative 569	Posted - 2014.01.26 01:23:00 - [6] - Quote buzzzzzzz killllllllll wrote: ccp should make it so the driver can only use the front turret, and a gunner can use the large turret OMG! This will honestly make so many tankers mad but makes so much sense lol. I honestly never thought of that since it is a video game and all but I don't know if there is even a video game on the market that does that.
DeadlyAztec11 Ostrakon Agency Gallente Federation 3566	Posted - 2014.01.26 01:23:00 - [7] - Quote OverIord Ulath wrote: DeadlyAztec11 wrote: buzzzzzzz killllllllll wrote: ccp should make it so the driver can only use the front turret, and a gunner can use the large turret Boom. Tanker Logic. Wait a minute.... I know another alt of Long Evity..... and he's.... WAIT A MINUTE..... .......no.... it couldn't be... WAIT A MINUTE.... Are you.... a fan of anime.....? I love me some Bleach, Naruto and FullMetal Alchemist My alts: General John Ripper, Draxus Prime, MoonEagle A, Anarchide, Long Evity And this is why I am the #1 forum warrior
Squagga The State Protectorate 58	Posted - 2014.01.26 01:32:00 - [8] - Quote I firmly believe that the most important and fairest way to solve this problem is to keep everything the way it is, but to make it more difficult to obtain these tanks. They should cost more, both in SP and in ISK. Maybe even the militia ones can be cheap. So that new people can get into them. But they arent nearly as strong. I was talking with some buddies last night they suggested that there should be a limit on how many vehiceles YOU can call in. If you lose a tank then you gotta wait for about four or five mins before you can call in another one. Which would cause you to have to be skilled in both infantry and vehicles. I do agree that just one person shouldn't be able to take out a tank. But then again it shouldn't be so easy for just one person to get a tank Reloading, the silent killer.
MrShooter01 Storm Wind Strikeforce Caldari State 466	Posted - 2014.01.26 01:33:00 - [9] - Quote Azura Sakura wrote: buzzzzzzz killllllllll wrote: ccp should make it so the driver can only use the front turret, and a gunner can use the large turret OMG! This will honestly make so many tankers mad but makes so much sense lol. I honestly never thought of that since it is a video game and all but I don't know if there is even a video game on the market that does that. The original Planetside was like this. There was a weak, fast tank called the lightning that could be operated solo, but the main battle tanks required a separate gunner and driver. Only one of those tanks even gave the driver control of a weak rapid fire weapon. If you wanted to roll around crushing people in a tank you either had to pick the small, fast one that would die when AV sneezed at it or you had to get a buddy to gun for your MBT (or hope a random in the gunner seat could shoot worth a damn).
Aizen Intiki OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 752	Posted - 2014.01.26 01:35:00 - [10] - Quote Squagga wrote: I firmly believe that the most important and fairest way to solve this problem is to keep everything the way it is, but to make it more difficult to obtain these tanks. They should cost more, both in SP and in ISK. Maybe even the militia ones can be cheap. So that new people can get into them. But they arent nearly as strong. I was talking with some buddies last night they suggested that there should be a limit on how many vehiceles YOU can call in. If you lose a tank then you gotta wait for about four or five mins before you can call in another one. Which would cause you to have to be skilled in both infantry and vehicles. I do agree that just one person shouldn't be able to take out a tank. But then again it shouldn't be so easy for just one person to get a tank This, minus that last suguestion "Hello, world!" lol, sounds like something a whore lover would say Alt of the great Godin I like chocolate ^___^

Aizen Intiki OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 752	Posted - 2014.01.26 01:37:00 - [11] - Quote We plug ourselves into the HAV, so we can control many of the functions at the same time. Degraging ourselves to mortal ways of life is silly. no. "Hello, world!" lol, sounds like something a whore lover would say Alt of the great Godin I like chocolate ^___^
DeadlyAztec11 Ostrakon Agency Gallente Federation 3570	Posted - 2014.01.26 01:40:00 - [12] - Quote Aizen Intiki wrote: We plug ourselves into the HAV, so we can control many of the functions at the same time. Degraging ourselves to mortal ways of life is silly. no. You know what's also silly? Needing Proto AV to destroy Militia HAV's. My alts: General John Ripper, Draxus Prime, MoonEagle A, Anarchide, Long Evity And this is why I am the #1 forum warrior
Aizen Intiki OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 752	Posted - 2014.01.26 01:41:00 - [13] - Quote DeadlyAztec11 wrote: Aizen Intiki wrote: We plug ourselves into the HAV, so we can control many of the functions at the same time. Degraging ourselves to mortal ways of life is silly. no. You know what's also silly? Needing Proto AV to destroy Militia HAV's. Do we have to do this again? "Hello, world!" lol, sounds like something a whore lover would say Alt of the great Godin I like chocolate ^___^
Ghosts Chance Inf4m0us 903	Posted - 2014.01.26 01:45:00 - [14] - Quote so more then a year now and people still ask this question? use the search function.
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 3926	Posted - 2014.01.26 01:46:00 - [15] - Quote Aizen Intiki wrote: We plug ourselves into the HAV, so we can control many of the functions at the same time. Degraging ourselves to mortal ways of life is silly. no. There are only two functions to control Next On To-Do List: Particle Cannons
OverIord Ulath Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 15	Posted - 2014.01.26 01:47:00 - [16] - Quote Aizen Intiki wrote: We plug ourselves into the HAV, so we can control many of the functions at the same time. Degraging ourselves to mortal ways of life is silly. no. Pointless blanket excuse that means nothing. Actual, logical, gameplay balance response requested.
OverIord Ulath Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 19	Posted - 2014.01.26 01:49:00 - [17] - Quote Ghosts Chance wrote: so more then a year now and people still ask this question? use the search function. More than a year now, and tankers still think it should take half a squad to kill them playing solo. Also, the search function doesn't yield any real argument that negates this statement. If you believe otherwise, link please.
Ghosts Chance Inf4m0us 903	Posted - 2014.01.26 01:49:00 - [18] - Quote OverIord Ulath wrote: Aizen Intiki wrote: We plug ourselves into the HAV, so we can control many of the functions at the same time. Degraging ourselves to mortal ways of life is silly. no. Pointless blanket excuse that means nothing. Actual, logical, gameplay balance response requested. actual responces have been givin 100 times over in the thousands of other threads started with the same title as yours, use the search function
OverIord Ulath Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 19	Posted - 2014.01.26 01:52:00 - [19] - Quote Ghosts Chance wrote: OverIord Ulath wrote: Aizen Intiki wrote: We plug ourselves into the HAV, so we can control many of the functions at the same time. Degraging ourselves to mortal ways of life is silly. no. Pointless blanket excuse that means nothing. Actual, logical, gameplay balance response requested. actual responces have been givin 100 times over in the thousands of other threads started with the same title as yours, use the search function OverIord Ulath wrote: ..... Also, the search function doesn't yield any real argument that negates this statement. If you believe otherwise, link please. Shouldn't be hard for you to link then then, eh?
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 3926	Posted - 2014.01.26 01:52:00 - [20] - Quote Ghosts Chance wrote: OverIord Ulath wrote: Aizen Intiki wrote: We plug ourselves into the HAV, so we can control many of the functions at the same time. Degraging ourselves to mortal ways of life is silly. no. Pointless blanket excuse that means nothing. Actual, logical, gameplay balance response requested. actual responces have been givin 100 times over in the thousands of other threads started with the same title as yours, use the search function Funny how you say this because you can't even type the title in the search bar without hitting the max character limit. Is there any other irrelevant and generally false statements that you'd like to make? Next On To-Do List: Particle Cannons

Ludvig Enraga KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 848	Posted - 2014.01.26 01:58:00 - [21] - Quote Squagga wrote: I firmly believe that the most important and fairest way to solve this problem is to keep everything the way it is, but to make it more difficult to obtain these tanks. They should cost more, both in SP and in ISK. Maybe even the militia ones can be cheap. So that new people can get into them. But they arent nearly as strong. I was talking with some buddies last night they suggested that there should be a limit on how many vehiceles YOU can call in. If you lose a tank then you gotta wait for about four or five mins before you can call in another one. Which would cause you to have to be skilled in both infantry and vehicles. I do agree that just one person shouldn't be able to take out a tank. But then again it shouldn't be so easy for just one person to get a tank BS. We have already too many ppl that stack OP stuff on one team to be able to tilt the odds of winning rewards in their favor so that they can afford to run OP stuff ad perpetuum. This is a problem that feeds into itself. If you wanna run a proto suit, you better squad up with other proto ppl to minimize risk of loss. With risk of loss minmized... well why not run proto all day? The good solution to the tank problems is to truly have windows of opportunity and vulnerability - right now it's too one sided: modes off for regular OP mode, hardeners on for the god mode. I think that tanks have to be slow - so that once your hardeners wear off and you are in the open with your pants down, you pay for it. Oh, sht! I just learned you can make a signature! Thanks, CCP! Forums are getting better!
Azura Sakura Altyr Initiative 572	Posted - 2014.01.26 02:03:00 - [22] - Quote MrShooter01 wrote: Azura Sakura wrote: buzzzzzzz killllllllll wrote: ccp should make it so the driver can only use the front turret, and a gunner can use the large turret OMG! This will honestly make so many tankers mad but makes so much sense lol. I honestly never thought of that since it is a video game and all but I don't know if there is even a video game on the market that does that. The original Planetside was like this. There was a weak, fast tank called the lightning that could be operated solo, but the main battle tanks required a separate gunner and driver. Only one of those tanks even gave the driver control of a weak rapid fire weapon. If you wanted to roll around crushing people in a tank you either had to pick the small, fast one that would die when AV sneezed at it or you had to get a buddy to gun for your MBT (or hope a random in the gunner seat could shoot worth a damn). Thanks for the info. Do PS2 tanks operate like that? I played only infantry in PS2 xD
Scheneighnay McBob Learning Coalition College 3716	Posted - 2014.01.26 02:07:00 - [23] - Quote DeadlyAztec11 wrote: OverIord Ulath wrote: DeadlyAztec11 wrote: buzzzzzzz killllllllll wrote: ccp should make it so the driver can only use the front turret, and a gunner can use the large turret Boom. Tanker Logic. Wait a minute.... I know another alt of Long Evity..... and he's.... WAIT A MINUTE..... .......no.... it couldn't be... WAIT A MINUTE.... Are you.... a fan of anime.....? I love me some Bleach, Naruto and FullMetal Alchemist You need to watch some Mirai Nikki, Elfenlied, or Tasogare Otome x Amnesia (I know that one doesn't fit with the super-morbid theme of the other 2). None of that **** that gets on american tv. I am your scan error.
OverIord Ulath Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 27	Posted - 2014.01.26 02:09:00 - [24] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: DeadlyAztec11 wrote: OverIord Ulath wrote: DeadlyAztec11 wrote: buzzzzzzz killllllllll wrote: ccp should make it so the driver can only use the front turret, and a gunner can use the large turret Boom. Tanker Logic. Wait a minute.... I know another alt of Long Evity..... and he's.... WAIT A MINUTE..... .......no.... it couldn't be... WAIT A MINUTE.... Are you.... a fan of anime.....? I love me some Bleach, Naruto and FullMetal Alchemist You need to watch some Mirai Nikki, Elfenlied, or Tasogare Otome x Amnesia (I know that one doesn't fit with the super-morbid theme of the other 2). None of that **** that gets on american tv. Gintama ftw
Joel II X Dah Gods O Bacon 669	Posted - 2014.01.26 02:12:00 - [25] - Quote Aizen Intiki wrote: DeadlyAztec11 wrote: Aizen Intiki wrote: We plug ourselves into the HAV, so we can control many of the functions at the same time. Degraging ourselves to mortal ways of life is silly. no. You know what's also silly? Needing Proto AV to destroy Militia HAV's. Do we have to do this again? Not if you don't back away. Tanks are broken. Everyone knows this.
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 3928	Posted - 2014.01.26 02:14:00 - [26] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: You need to watch some Mirai Nikki, Elfenlied, or Tasogare Otome x Amnesia (I know that one doesn't fit with the super-morbid theme of the other 2). None of that **** that gets on american tv. None of the good $#!t ever gets on American TV Next On To-Do List: Particle Cannons
Tech Ohm Eaven L.O.T.I.S. D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 1131	Posted - 2014.01.26 02:14:00 - [27] - Quote Tired of broken tanks. Anime?? Robot Carnival Neo Tokyo Lensman Vampire Hunter D Vexille Apple Seed Abandon Ship!, Abandon Ship!! Jumps into escape pod! Selected destination Planet PS4.
DeadlyAztec11 Ostrakon Agency Gallente Federation 3575	Posted - 2014.01.26 02:15:00 - [28] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: You need to watch some Mirai Nikki, Elfenlied, or Tasogare Otome x Amnesia (I know that one doesn't fit with the super-morbid theme of the other 2). None of that **** that gets on american tv. I only know Spanish, English and French. I do not know Japanese. On that note, I detest subtitles. My alts: General John Ripper, Draxus Prime, MoonEagle A, Anarchide, Long Evity And this is why I am the #1 forum warrior
Joel II X Dah Gods O Bacon 669	Posted - 2014.01.26 02:15:00 - [29] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: DeadlyAztec11 wrote: OverIord Ulath wrote: DeadlyAztec11 wrote: buzzzzzzz killllllllll wrote: ccp should make it so the driver can only use the front turret, and a gunner can use the large turret Boom. Tanker Logic. Wait a minute.... I know another alt of Long Evity..... and he's.... WAIT A MINUTE..... .......no.... it couldn't be... WAIT A MINUTE.... Are you.... a fan of anime.....? I love me some Bleach, Naruto and FullMetal Alchemist You need to watch some Mirai Nikki, Elfenlied, or Tasogare Otome x Amnesia (I know that one doesn't fit with the super-morbid theme of the other 2). None of that **** that gets on american tv. Gintama ftw[/quote] I'm pretty sure Future Diary and Elfen Lied made it to Adult Swim. Anyways, I enjoyed Death Note, and some comedies. I would tell everyone here my tastes in anime, but this isn't the thread for that.
OverIord Ulath Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 27	Posted - 2014.01.26 02:16:00 - [30] - Quote /back on topic Still waiting on that link to a proper counter argument Ghosty. Aaaaaaany day now.

MINA Longstrike 2Shitz 1Giggle 233	Posted - 2014.01.26 02:18:00 - [31] - Quote DeadlyAztec11 wrote: Aizen Intiki wrote: We plug ourselves into the HAV, so we can control many of the functions at the same time. Degraging ourselves to mortal ways of life is silly. no. You know what's also silly? Needing Proto AV to destroy Militia HAV's. You're beating a dead horse, most tankers acknowledge that light av is slightly underpowered as things currently stand, tanksare too cheap (the biggest offender being mlt) and rail turrets are wildly out of control. That said you cannot change too much all at once or we go back to 1.6 where av was blatantly overpowered, tanks were 500k to 3.2m isk death traps and overall the 'balance' just wasn't there and things weren't fun. Now in terms of buffs I think the plc should be getting a decent one, but swarms should probably not (if they do it should be something simple like +1 missile per volley) and ill explain the reasoning too. Plc's are hard to use, especially at a distance, you should really be rewarded for landing that shot (in fact I'd like to see the plc do more damage the further the projectile had traveled)... Swarms however are not hard to use - they are painfully easy so easy in fact that the weapon comes with a checkbox that asks if you have Parkinson's or epilepsy, if neither is applicable all you need to do is center a tank or other offending vehicle on screen and swarms are go. Something so easy to use should not be the 'best' vehicle killer. Forges are for the most part okay, the non mlt ones are great actually. To be completely honest I'm also largely in favor of slowing down tank vs tank fights so tanks don't just flat die in2 seconds to damage modded rails or missiles (it would be nifty if missiles reloaded independently to make them sustained medium range anti-armor, of course providing a lower RoF)
Scheneighnay McBob Learning Coalition College 3718	Posted - 2014.01.26 02:19:00 - [32] - Quote Joel II X wrote: Scheneighnay McBob wrote: DeadlyAztec11 wrote: OverIord Ulath wrote: buzzzzzzz killllllllll wrote: ccp should make it so the driver can only use the front turret, and a gunner can use the large turret Wait a minute.... I know another alt of Long Evity..... and he's.... WAIT A MINUTE..... .......no.... it couldn't be... WAIT A MINUTE.... Are you.... a fan of anime.....? I love me some Bleach, Naruto and FullMetal Alchemist You need to watch some Mirai Nikki, Elfenlied, or Tasogare Otome x Amnesia (I know that one doesn't fit with the super-morbid theme of the other 2). None of that ** that gets on american tv. Gintama ftw I'm pretty sure Future Diary and Elfen Lied made it to Adult Swim. Anyways, I enjoyed Death Note, and some comedies. I would tell everyone here my tastes in anime, but this isn't the thread for that. [/quote] Eflenlied MIGHT have (they would have had to sensor the out of it), but I highly doubt mirai nikki did because it isn't fully dubbed, unless they just finished. ** dubs. I am your scan error.
Ghosts Chance Inf4m0us 903	Posted - 2014.01.26 02:20:00 - [33] - Quote Atiim wrote: Ghosts Chance wrote: OverIord Ulath wrote: Aizen Intiki wrote: We plug ourselves into the HAV, so we can control many of the functions at the same time. Degraging ourselves to mortal ways of life is silly. no. Pointless blanket excuse that means nothing. Actual, logical, gameplay balance response requested. actual responces have been givin 100 times over in the thousands of other threads started with the same title as yours, use the search function Funny how you say this because you can't even type the title in the search bar without hitting the max character limit. Is there any other irrelevant and generally false statements that you'd like to make? semantics, this same thread has exsisted more times then i can count fact now go read them and learn from them.
The Attorney General 1892	Posted - 2014.01.26 02:22:00 - [34] - Quote Tanks can be taken down by a single AV person. This thread is just silly. Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 3928	Posted - 2014.01.26 02:24:00 - [35] - Quote The Attorney General wrote: Tanks can be taken down by a single AV person. This thread is just silly. LAVs can also be taken out by HMGs, Mass Drivers, Flaylock Pistols and Combat Rifles. Next On To-Do List: Particle Cannons
Henchmen21 Planet Express LLC 461	Posted - 2014.01.26 02:30:00 - [36] - Quote Yet it only takes 1 person to fly/fire a titan. The inability to control two aspects of something 1000x smaller makes no sense. All that has to happen is either slow tanks down, or make prox mines stop giving warnings. I alone can do enough damage to make a tank run away. If running away wasn't an easy out I'd be able to finish it off. Also I'd reduce blaster range so they had to fear AV nades. Henchmen21: Infantry Gotyougood Ufkr: Vehicles
Lorhak Gannarsein 1337	Posted - 2014.01.26 02:38:00 - [37] - Quote Atiim wrote: The Attorney General wrote: Tanks can be taken down by a single AV person. This thread is just silly. LAVs can also be taken out by HMGs, Mass Drivers, Flaylock Pistols and Combat Rifles. My forge still has no problem soloing tanks. DAU all day. Maybe you should change the topic to 'why do it two swarm guy kill the tank' or something? And Ghost doesn't like linking threads; don't think I've ever seen him do it. Happily printing ISK with permahardeners and MLT blasters. Just let me get a couple mil more before nerf, CCP!
The Attorney General 1892	Posted - 2014.01.26 02:43:00 - [38] - Quote Atiim wrote: The Attorney General wrote: Tanks can be taken down by a single AV person. This thread is just silly. LAVs can also be taken out by HMGs, Mass Drivers, Flaylock Pistols and Combat Rifles. Confirmed: Anti Infantry weapons are far too versatile. Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
OverIord Ulath Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 30	Posted - 2014.01.26 02:49:00 - [39] - Quote The Attorney General wrote: Tanks can be taken down by a single AV person. This thread is just silly. Tanks CAN be taken down by a single AV person. If that tanker is either stupid, doesn't have skill, hasn't specced into tanks, doesn't know tank strategy, doesn't have situational awareness or if the AV player is lucky. Or some combination thereof. A properly fitted tank run by a proper tanker who knows what he is doing is not going to be dropped by a single AV player unless that AV player is a prof. 5 forge gunner running 2 damage mods on a proto forge gun sitting on a roof with nanohives. I found out just today that someone with stacked repps on a Madrugar (no hardners, just repps) can out-repp 3 swarms from a prof. 5 swarm launcher with 3 complex damage mods started off with one packed EXO-AV grenade. That was an unpleasant surprise. I sat behind the hill he had me pinned behind until my hive ran dry, then he gunned me down while I tried to make it to a supply depot. DavidBerkowitz (friend of mine from L.O.T.I.S.) has his Madrugar set up with over 300 armor repps per second, and since you can only fire off a volley every 4 seconds or so, even if you don't include the travel time of the swarms, you have already repped *over* 1200 armor before the next volley hits. And if we apply this math: Berserker007 wrote: [clipped] If you look at the damage math (and my attempt to do so); look at a bare bone Militia Soma: has 1200 shield, 4000 armor Current proto SL damage (using my skills/stats as base): 6x220= 1320 (per volley be4 skills/mods) x 1.12 = 1478 (w. prof level) x 1.24 = 1833 (w/ 3 complex damage mods) x .2 = 366 ..... 1833-366 = 1467 1st shot against shield So right there, your ONE volley of Proto SL w/ all those mods, just BARELY breaks they shield of a militia no items/skilled tank. [clipped] [From this thread] We see that even if there is no flight time between when you fire and when the missiles connect, meaning firing from *POINT BLANK RANGE*, you are repairing at least half of your armor before the swarms can even connect again. Yeah... one guy's totally got this under control....
thomas mak STRONG-ARMED BANDITS Public Disorder. 22	Posted - 2014.01.26 02:54:00 - [40] - Quote it is New Eden Y tank can't run by one man *Real tanker dies with their tanks!*

ZeHealingHurts HurtingHeals Seituoda Taskforce Command 982	Posted - 2014.01.26 02:54:00 - [41] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Joel II X wrote: Scheneighnay McBob wrote: DeadlyAztec11 wrote: I love me some Bleach, Naruto and FullMetal Alchemist wrote: You need to watch some Mirai Nikki, Elfenlied, or Tasogare Otome x Amnesia (I know that one doesn't fit with the super-morbid theme of the other 2). None of that ** that gets on american tv. Gintama ftw I'm pretty sure Future Diary and Elfen Lied made it to Adult Swim. Anyways, I enjoyed Death Note, and some comedies. I would tell everyone here my tastes in anime, but this isn't the thread for that. Eflenlied MIGHT have (they would have had to sensor the out of it), but I highly doubt mirai nikki did because it isn't fully dubbed, unless they just finished. ** dubs. This thread is now about anime. >Tallen Ellecon wrote: >They didn't hurt all Logis, just the support ones.
Yokal Bob G.R.A.V.E INTERGALACTIC WARPIGS 302	Posted - 2014.01.26 02:56:00 - [42] - Quote This situation has already been noted and will be looked at in due course (as stated by a dev). personally i feel that a tank is a tank, it should not be soloed. similarly a tank should not get the amount of kills they do if they are the only one in the tank. this way makes need for squad tactics to be more developed. CPM1 candidate
The Attorney General 1892	Posted - 2014.01.26 03:06:00 - [43] - Quote OverIord Ulath wrote: A properly fitted tank run by a proper tanker who knows what he is doing is not going to be dropped by a single AV player unless that AV player is a prof. 5 forge gunner running 2 damage mods on a proto forge gun sitting on a roof with nanohives. Beyond the obvious problems with tanks, this particular fit has an interesting place and it needs a little attention. That type of fit has no hope against even a MLT rail on a sica. It has literally no defense for alpha spikes. What it does have is a complete gearing towards surviving waves of AV thrown haphazardly while it works a blaster. Is it right that such a fit is possible? Similarly, should a shield tanker be able to stack triple hardeners with an armor hardener and a heavy armor repair module? The likely answer is no, and that the modules still need to be adjusted. That type of fit can also be ultrakilled by any combo of mines, or AV nades and a hive. Or a combo strike of AV nades and a forge shot to the ass. With all that said, that is only one type of fit, and it is easily destroyed by any rail, including installations, which will make short which of that type of fit. Most other fits are solo material for AV players, and so the thread is still overly broad without need. Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
Aizen Intiki OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 754	Posted - 2014.01.26 03:14:00 - [44] - Quote Atiim wrote: Aizen Intiki wrote: We plug ourselves into the HAV, so we can control many of the functions at the same time. Degraging ourselves to mortal ways of life is silly. no. There are only two functions to control Well, control of the hull, loading the ammo, aiming the turret & firing it, controlling the modules, etc. is done probably in a mortal HAV by a 3-4 man crew. "Hello, world!" lol, sounds like something a whore lover would say Alt of the great Godin I like chocolate ^___^
OverIord Ulath Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 35	Posted - 2014.01.26 03:14:00 - [45] - Quote The Attorney General wrote: OverIord Ulath wrote: A properly fitted tank run by a proper tanker who knows what he is doing is not going to be dropped by a single AV player unless that AV player is a prof. 5 forge gunner running 2 damage mods on a proto forge gun sitting on a roof with nanohives. Beyond the obvious problems with tanks, this particular fit has an interesting place and it needs a little attention. That type of fit has no hope against even a MLT rail on a sica. It has literally no defense for alpha spikes. What it does have is a complete gearing towards surviving waves of AV thrown haphazardly while it works a blaster. Is it right that such a fit is possible? Similarly, should a shield tanker be able to stack triple hardeners with an armor hardener and a heavy armor repair module? The likely answer is no, and that the modules still need to be adjusted. That type of fit can also be ultrakilled by any combo of mines, or AV nades and a hive. Or a combo strike of AV nades and a forge shot to the ass. With all that said, that is only one type of fit, and it is easily destroyed by any rail, including installations, which will make short which of that type of fit. Most other fits are solo material for AV players, and so the thread is still overly broad without need. A very reasonable response, but the point of the thread isn't even really a qualm against the different tank fits that are not soloable, or even against all tankers and their views on tanks. It's against the mindset that many tankers have across the various tank balance threads that because of their SP investment and fit costs compared to infantry, they feel that they should not be soloable by infantry. A specific jab at a specific group of people. I do appreciate your reasonable responses to valid issues brought up here, however it's a philosophy of game balance that I am disputing in this thread, not the current state of affairs in-game.
Aizen Intiki OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 754	Posted - 2014.01.26 03:19:00 - [46] - Quote Joel II X wrote: Aizen Intiki wrote: DeadlyAztec11 wrote: Aizen Intiki wrote: We plug ourselves into the HAV, so we can control many of the functions at the same time. Degraging ourselves to mortal ways of life is silly. no. You know what's also silly? Needing Proto AV to destroy Militia HAV's. Do we have to do this again? Not if you don't back away. Tanks are broken. Everyone knows this. I've already given reasonable suguestions. This is unreasonable. My first point makes this make no sense lore wise, as we're not mortals, and I have to skill into it, so why do I let a bluedot use it? "Hello, world!" lol, sounds like something a whore lover would say Alt of the great Godin I like chocolate ^___^
OverIord Ulath Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 35	Posted - 2014.01.26 03:23:00 - [47] - Quote Aizen Intiki wrote: Joel II X wrote: Aizen Intiki wrote: DeadlyAztec11 wrote: Aizen Intiki wrote: We plug ourselves into the HAV, so we can control many of the functions at the same time. Degraging ourselves to mortal ways of life is silly. no. You know what's also silly? Needing Proto AV to destroy Militia HAV's. Do we have to do this again? Not if you don't back away. Tanks are broken. Everyone knows this. I've already given reasonable suguestions. This is unreasonable. My first point makes this make no sense lore wise, as we're not mortals, and I have to skill into it, so why do I let a bluedot use it? The point in this thread is not to say that tankers should require multiple people to run their tanks, it is to say that it is ridiculous to expect to be able to draw 3+ people away from focusing on a match just to deal with your sorry ass just because you decided to take a different skill tree than they did.
Aizen Intiki OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 754	Posted - 2014.01.26 03:24:00 - [48] - Quote Read, and quiet. "Hello, world!" lol, sounds like something a whore lover would say Alt of the great Godin I like chocolate ^___^
MrShooter01 Storm Wind Strikeforce Caldari State 468	Posted - 2014.01.26 03:25:00 - [49] - Quote Azura Sakura wrote: Thanks for the info. Do PS2 tanks operate like that? I played only infantry in PS2 xD Nah, they made them all solopwnmobiles in PS2 with the main gun on the large tanks operated by the driver. Apparently needing a gunner for a tank was just not fun enough (despite the presence of several very popular vehicles in PS2 that still need dedicated gunners ) But rolling with a secondary weapon gunner is still very useful at least. A tank equipped with an AV secondary turret operated by a decent gunner will win against a solo tank driver most of the time, and an AI secondary turret usually does a much better job of slaughtering infantry than the slow firing main gun. Contrast with dust, where the secondary turrets are usually dropped by solo tankers for more pg/cpu. Then again, the one thing both games have in common is you don't want a random on your secondary gun firing wildly into the air so that the tank you were trying to sneak behind knows you're coming
Gavr1lo Pr1nc1p TRA1LBLAZERS 254	Posted - 2014.01.26 03:28:00 - [50] - Quote DeadlyAztec11 wrote: buzzzzzzz killllllllll wrote: ccp should make it so the driver can only use the front turret, and a gunner can use the large turret Boom. Tanker Logic. No tanker logic is as follows- I have a tank so because its name is tank, I should be invincible. Yes, I did kill Archduke Ferdinand. I used my nova knives. https://dust514.com/recruit/k3vMnb/

Operative 1171 Aajli Bragian Order Amarr Empire 1097	Posted - 2014.01.26 03:29:00 - [51] - Quote Hmm, in EVE a battleship gets about five or so big guns vs. a little frigate with maybe three little bitty guns. No, it's working as intended. DUST and EVE are the same in that CCP designs them and they base their designs on a certain mentality that is consistent between the two games. One person, one character (one vehicle). Just because you want to team up with other infantry doesn't mean I have to suffer dealing with coordinating with other people. You could run solo and it'd be the same GÇô one person, one character. Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I read your book!
Aizen Intiki OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 754	Posted - 2014.01.26 03:41:00 - [52] - Quote Gavr1lo Pr1nc1p wrote: DeadlyAztec11 wrote: buzzzzzzz killllllllll wrote: ccp should make it so the driver can only use the front turret, and a gunner can use the large turret Boom. Tanker Logic. No tanker logic is as follows- I have a tank so because its name is tank, I should be invincible. No, that's sad little scrub logic. See, you see me saying that you're bad when you want to solo vehicles easily, but your mind sees me saying that I should be invincible. "Hello, world!" lol, sounds like something a whore lover would say Alt of the great Godin I like chocolate ^___^
OverIord Ulath Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 39	Posted - 2014.01.26 03:47:00 - [53] - Quote Operative 1171 Aajli wrote: Hmm, in EVE a battleship gets about five or so big guns vs. a little frigate with maybe three little bitty guns. No, it's working as intended. DUST and EVE are the same in that CCP designs them and they base their designs on a certain mentality that is consistent between the two games. One person, one character (one vehicle). Just because you want to team up with other infantry doesn't mean I have to suffer dealing with coordinating with other people. You could run solo and it'd be the same GÇô one person, one character. I know this has been said before billions of times, but it bears repeating I suppose. EVE =/= DUST You cannot balance a FPS game based on a space ship game. You cannot balance a 16v16 game on a fleet v fleet game. You cannot balance a console lobby shooter where you actively have to earn SP off of a PC MMO space opera where you can let the game sit for months and not miss a beat on your SP accumulation. You cannot balance a game that is based on using cover, strafing, aiming and "gungame" on a game that is based on whatever the hell you use to kill people with in a space MMO. Therefore, you cannot base tank v infantry balance on titan v frigate balance.
Gavr1lo Pr1nc1p TRA1LBLAZERS 255	Posted - 2014.01.26 03:50:00 - [54] - Quote Aizen Intiki wrote: Gavr1lo Pr1nc1p wrote: DeadlyAztec11 wrote: buzzzzzzz killllllllll wrote: ccp should make it so the driver can only use the front turret, and a gunner can use the large turret Boom. Tanker Logic. No tanker logic is as follows- I have a tank so because its name is tank, I should be invincible. No, that's sad little scrub logic. See, you see me saying that you're bad when you want to solo vehicles easily, but your mind sees me saying that I should be invincible. No sorry if i offended you. I was simply referring to Tanahiro whatever, the super radical tanker dude. That, quite literally, is his logic. Ill try to find the thread if you would like to see it. Yes, I did kill Archduke Ferdinand. I used my nova knives. https://dust514.com/recruit/k3vMnb/
buzzzzzzz killllllllll TRA1LBLAZERS 85	Posted - 2014.01.26 03:51:00 - [55] - Quote Aizen Intiki wrote: Gavr1lo Pr1nc1p wrote: DeadlyAztec11 wrote: buzzzzzzz killllllllll wrote: ccp should make it so the driver can only use the front turret, and a gunner can use the large turret Boom. Tanker Logic. No tanker logic is as follows- I have a tank so because its name is tank, I should be invincible. No, that's sad little scrub logic. See, you see me saying that you're bad when you want to solo vehicles easily, but your mind sees me saying that I should be invincible. No, im pretty sure hes saying that most tankers want to be invincible because they have a tank, and that is how the game is. Btw, I have an alt with pro 5 forges and the highest tier vehicle stuff, so I know what im talking about
OverIord Ulath Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 40	Posted - 2014.01.26 03:51:00 - [56] - Quote Aizen Intiki wrote: Gavr1lo Pr1nc1p wrote: DeadlyAztec11 wrote: buzzzzzzz killllllllll wrote: ccp should make it so the driver can only use the front turret, and a gunner can use the large turret Boom. Tanker Logic. No tanker logic is as follows- I have a tank so because its name is tank, I should be invincible. No, that's sad little scrub logic. See, you see me saying that you're bad when you want to solo vehicles easily, but your mind sees me saying that I should be invincible. No, I see you saying you should be invincible when I see you saying tanks are balanced after I fire off 12 volleys of prof. 5 swarms and the tank is still sitting there smiling at me. However, you've not (that I've seen) said that tanks are balanced, so that doesn't apply to you. Yet.
Ludvig Enraga KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 853	Posted - 2014.01.26 04:15:00 - [57] - Quote DeadlyAztec11 wrote: Scheneighnay McBob wrote: You need to watch some Mirai Nikki, Elfenlied, or Tasogare Otome x Amnesia (I know that one doesn't fit with the super-morbid theme of the other 2). None of that **** that gets on american tv. I only know Spanish, English and French. I do not know Japanese. On that note, I detest subtitles. Life must be so hard for you trilingual ppl... How do you even manage to communicate with others? Oh, sht! I just learned you can make a signature! Thanks, CCP! Forums are getting better!
Ghosts Chance Inf4m0us 904	Posted - 2014.01.26 04:40:00 - [58] - Quote And this thread has become the reason why you dont ask this question on the forums, but like the hundred or so threads that came before it someone will simply refuse to use the search function and start this up all over again
Joel II X Dah Gods O Bacon 674	Posted - 2014.01.26 05:01:00 - [59] - Quote Ludvig Enraga wrote: DeadlyAztec11 wrote: Scheneighnay McBob wrote: You need to watch some Mirai Nikki, Elfenlied, or Tasogare Otome x Amnesia (I know that one doesn't fit with the super-morbid theme of the other 2). None of that **** that gets on american tv. I only know Spanish, English and French. I do not know Japanese. On that note, I detest subtitles. Life must be so hard for you trilingual ppl... How do you even manage to communicate with others? It's really not that hard. I just happen to forgot certain words in one language at a time. For example: instead of saying what time is it, I may say what hour is it (bad example since I would never say this but hopefully you get the point). I also know little Italian from high school so I would be a quadilingual? Lol no, not really. I can barely talk two sentences in Italian. I should practice. If you're wondering, I know English, Spanish, moderate Japanese and little Italian. Can't write in Japanese to save my life... yet.
Joel II X Dah Gods O Bacon 674	Posted - 2014.01.26 05:02:00 - [60] - Quote Ghosts Chance wrote: And this thread has become the reason why you dont ask this question on the forums, but like the hundred or so threads that came before it someone will simply refuse to use the search function and start this up all over again This thread is getting derailed, little by little.

KING CHECKMATE Ametat Security Amarr Empire 4025	Posted - 2014.01.26 05:04:00 - [61] - Quote OverIord Ulath wrote: Then shouldn't they require the same number of people to run their tanks? I mean... If you are taking 3 people's attention away from focusing on winning the match just to deal with you, shouldn't you require the same number of people to distract them? Yup,pretty much. +1 GIVE ME A RESPEC CCP.
Aizen Intiki OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 754	Posted - 2014.01.26 05:07:00 - [62] - Quote buzzzzzzz killllllllll wrote: Aizen Intiki wrote: Gavr1lo Pr1nc1p wrote: DeadlyAztec11 wrote: buzzzzzzz killllllllll wrote: ccp should make it so the driver can only use the front turret, and a gunner can use the large turret Boom. Tanker Logic. No tanker logic is as follows- I have a tank so because its name is tank, I should be invincible. No, that's sad little scrub logic. See, you see me saying that you're bad when you want to solo vehicles easily, but your mind sees me saying that I should be invincible. No, im pretty sure hes saying that most tankers want to be invincible because they have a tank, and that is how the game is. Btw, I have an alt with pro 5 forges and the highest tier vehicle stuff, so I know what im talking about I have Forges at prof. 5 (even though I never use it lol, swarms at prof. 5, PLC at prof. 5, and I got RE's at lvl 5. I win. "Hello, world!" lol, sounds like something a whore lover would say Alt of the great Godin I like chocolate ^___^
Ghosts Chance Inf4m0us 904	Posted - 2014.01.26 05:08:00 - [63] - Quote Joel II X wrote: Ghosts Chance wrote: And this thread has become the reason why you dont ask this question on the forums, but like the hundred or so threads that came before it someone will simply refuse to use the search function and start this up all over again This thread is getting derailed, little by little. they ALL do every last one of them. in the end niether side wants to give ground and neither side can be convinced in any capasity. its like a hardcore athiest vs extremeist christian, in the end neither side will budge for any reason whatsoever no matter what arguments are present on either side. and thats what happens in every single one of these threads. this thread is pointless, nothing good will ever come of it, stop making these threads and use the search function.
jordy mack Ultramarine Corp 127	Posted - 2014.01.26 05:11:00 - [64] - Quote Aizen Intiki wrote: We plug ourselves into the HAV, so we can control many of the functions at the same time. Degraging ourselves to mortal ways of life is silly. no. Are u sure? I heard its all levers, pedals and minority report in there. Maybe u plug ur helmet cam/suit computer in to monitor stuff, but I'm pretty sure that's the main difference between pilots and mercs. We can't do the whole matrix jack in thing. Less QQ more PewPew
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 3942	Posted - 2014.01.26 05:14:00 - [65] - Quote Aizen Intiki wrote: I have Forges at prof. 5 (even though I never use it lol, swarms at prof. 5, PLC at prof. 5, and I got RE's at lvl 5. I win. And I have an alt touting dual damage mods with a Particle Cannon. Do you want a cookie or something? Next On To-Do List: Particle Cannons
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 3943	Posted - 2014.01.26 05:26:00 - [66] - Quote Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: My forge still has no problem soloing tanks. DAU all day. Maybe you should change the topic to 'why do it two swarm guy kill the tank' or something? And Ghost doesn't like linking threads; don't think I've ever seen him do it. And what comments would you have twoards the vast majority of the player base who don't have access to Sentinels? Let me Guess; "Everyone should skill into heavies. Only heavies should be taking out tanks" Next On To-Do List: Particle Cannons
Harpyja Molon Labe. Public Disorder. 1140	Posted - 2014.01.26 05:42:00 - [67] - Quote I wish my standard suit can take on a sentinel solo I hate how it takes teamwork or tactics to bring down those fatties Seriously, this is how stupid you all sound. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
Aizen Intiki OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 756	Posted - 2014.01.26 05:44:00 - [68] - Quote Atiim wrote: Aizen Intiki wrote: I have Forges at prof. 5 (even though I never use it lol, swarms at prof. 5, PLC at prof. 5, and I got RE's at lvl 5. I win. And I have an alt touting dual damage mods with a Particle Cannon. Do you want a cookie or something? But rails are for scrubs. I still win. EDIT: Chocolate chip or sugar, leaning towards sugar "Hello, world!" lol, sounds like something a whore lover would say Alt of the great Godin I like chocolate ^___^
Aizen Intiki OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 756	Posted - 2014.01.26 05:45:00 - [69] - Quote jordy mack wrote: Aizen Intiki wrote: We plug ourselves into the HAV, so we can control many of the functions at the same time. Degraging ourselves to mortal ways of life is silly. no. Are u sure? I heard its all levers, pedals and minority report in there. Maybe u plug ur helmet cam/suit computer in to monitor stuff, but I'm pretty sure that's the main difference between pilots and mercs. We can't do the whole matrix jack in thing. Yes, I'm sure. "Hello, world!" lol, sounds like something a whore lover would say Alt of the great Godin I like chocolate ^___^
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 3944	Posted - 2014.01.26 05:51:00 - [70] - Quote Harpyja wrote: I wish my standard suit can take on a sentinel solo I hate how it takes teamwork or tactics to bring down those fatties Seriously, this is how stupid you all sound. My STD suit can take on sentinels solo. Just use a Combat Rifle I've got an RS-90 and I'm making Sentinels look like butter. I can solo a Heavy. All I need is a Remote Explosive, Shotgun, or Nova Knives. Makes quick work of them too. Additionally, a heavy requires an additional unit known as the Logistics to be successful. A heavy without one is about as good as dead. Should we bring back LLAVs Remote Repairers/Transporters and make HAVs non-viable without being constantly repped by a LLAV? Next On To-Do List: Particle Cannons

Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 3944	Posted - 2014.01.26 05:52:00 - [71] - Quote Aizen Intiki wrote: Yes, I'm sure. Can I have DEV confirmation? :P Next On To-Do List: Particle Cannons
Harpyja Molon Labe. Public Disorder. 1140	Posted - 2014.01.26 06:03:00 - [72] - Quote Atiim wrote: Harpyja wrote: I wish my standard suit can take on a sentinel solo I hate how it takes teamwork or tactics to bring down those fatties Seriously, this is how stupid you all sound. My STD suit can take on sentinels solo. Just use a Combat Rifle I've got an RS-90 and I'm making Sentinels look like butter. I can solo a Heavy. All I need is a Remote Explosive, Shotgun, or Nova Knives. Makes quick work of them too. Additionally, a heavy requires an additional unit known as the Logistics to be successful. A heavy without one is about as good as dead. Should we bring back LLAVs Remote Repairers/Transporters and make HAVs non-viable without being constantly repped by a LLAV? And just like you can solo heavies with a medium suit, there are people that can solo tanks. But if people are QQing to nerf HAVs or to buff AV, then why doesn't it apply to heavies? I don't see people QQing about the fact they can't solo heavies. I certainly can't take down a heavy unless it lets me fire a full clip into it, but I'm not QQing. HTFU. Tanks are a force to reckon with now. You got too soft since Uprising launched. We HTFU over time, like you kept tellng us (even if we may have QQed about it ourselves), and now those of us who tanked throughout Uprising appear unstoppable to AV. Your turn to HTFU now. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
Jackof All-Trades The Southern Legion The Umbra Combine 381	Posted - 2014.01.26 06:08:00 - [73] - Quote DeadlyAztec11 wrote: OverIord Ulath wrote: DeadlyAztec11 wrote: buzzzzzzz killllllllll wrote: ccp should make it so the driver can only use the front turret, and a gunner can use the large turret Boom. Tanker Logic. Wait a minute.... I know another alt of Long Evity..... and he's.... WAIT A MINUTE..... .......no.... it couldn't be... WAIT A MINUTE.... Are you.... a fan of anime.....? I love me some Bleach, Naruto and FullMetal Alchemist Fck yeah Fullmetal Alchemist on topic, I think there needs to be a variant of tank (like we have with weapons) that is a two seater. They would be better than the 'solo tanks' we have today in some way (tank nerf? ) "Pulvis et umbra sums." We are but dust and shadow* GÇò Horace, The Odes of Horace \ Omni-Specialist / Focus: Gallente
Dusters Blog Galactic News Network 595	Posted - 2014.01.26 06:29:00 - [74] - Quote we have supported this since b4 uprising. Give the driver credit for the kills, but make it so he has to have a gunner [who will get assists] to operate the main cannon.
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 3947	Posted - 2014.01.26 06:37:00 - [75] - Quote Harpyja wrote: And just like you can solo heavies with a medium suit, there are people that can solo tanks. But if people are QQing to nerf HAVs or to buff AV, then why doesn't it apply to heavies? I don't see people QQing about the fact they can't solo heavies. I certainly can't take down a heavy unless it lets me fire a full clip into it, but I'm not QQing. HTFU. Tanks are a force to reckon with now. You got too soft since Uprising launched. We HTFU over time, like you kept tellng us (even if we may have QQed about it ourselves), and now those of us who tanked throughout Uprising appear unstoppable to AV. Your turn to HTFU now. I don't even need a Medium Frame to solo them. And I solo scrub tankers daily. Nobody can solo a pilot worth half their salt. Heck, I haven't even been soloed yet and I'm not even that good according to other pilots. It would apply to heavies, but a Sentinel requires a Logistics unit to be even slightly effective. Even the best heavies can't last long without support from a Logistics unit. Basically, Heavies require teamwork, Heavy Attack Vehicles don't require teamwork. Your argument is now invalid. You need an entire clip? WTF are you using? No, you appear unstoppable because of your gear. According to the butthurt forum warriors, I sucked at tanking. So if I sucked then, shouldn't I suck now? I mean after all, it is the skill from 1.6 that makes tankers good right? Is it really my turn yet? It's kinda hard to tell when your still crying. Next On To-Do List: Particle Cannons
Ivy Zalinto Bobbit's Hangmen 260	Posted - 2014.01.26 07:40:00 - [76] - Quote MrShooter01 wrote: (or hope a random in the gunner seat could shoot worth a damn). This never happened.... <--- bfr certified and advanced hacker. Miss that game. Theres still like...a few people on the servers but not enough to make it fun again. Dedicated Stealth Scout. Scout instructor; Learning Coalition Scrambler Pistol dedication
Lonewolf Heavy ROGUE SPADES 93	Posted - 2014.01.26 07:45:00 - [77] - Quote Azura Sakura wrote: buzzzzzzz killllllllll wrote: ccp should make it so the driver can only use the front turret, and a gunner can use the large turret OMG! This will honestly make so many tankers mad but makes so much sense lol. I honestly never thought of that since it is a video game and all but I don't know if there is even a video game on the market that does that. Arma. Driver of tank only controls the movement, Someone else controls the gun. Blueberries are delicious and an essential part of my diet ;) Commando/Heavy Willing to PC for anyone for a low price
Leonid Tybalt Dark Knightz Corp. 196	Posted - 2014.01.26 07:53:00 - [78] - Quote More tank related QQ. Starting to get old. As long as the tank costs more than whatever dropsuit the other guy is using then they shouldn't be "equal". The tank should be superior.
Rusty Shallows 906	Posted - 2014.01.26 08:04:00 - [79] - Quote The Attorney General wrote: snip Most other fits are solo material for AV players, and so the thread is still overly broad without need. Devs aren't interested in nuanced discussions. Otherwise we wouldn't have had all the crazy nerfing and buffs of 1.7 Here, have some candy and a Like. :-) Forums > Game
Glitch116 Black Phoenix Mercenaries Legacy Rising 24	Posted - 2014.01.26 08:13:00 - [80] - Quote also has anyone actual sat down and though about what having a gunner and a driver would really do? you do know that same of the biggest weaknesses of tanks right now is the fact that it is hard to aim and turn at speed. tanks currently need to be slow or stationary to really aim well. know imagine what happens when you spread the load of aim and driving over to 2 players. now tanks can stay at speed and be able to always know where they are going while have great ADS ... just think about what you are asking for my really make tanks STRONGER in the hands of skilled players imagine those blaster drivebys.... I AM THE KING OF THE BLASTER!!! deal with it

Rusty Shallows 906	Posted - 2014.01.26 08:31:00 - [81] - Quote Harpyja wrote: I wish my standard suit can take on a sentinel solo I hate how it takes teamwork or tactics to bring down those fatties Seriously, this is how stupid you all sound. Use one of the big Four-Rifles, have the proficiency at 3, stack complex damage mods, and if possible rake the head (it's a large target and we are stupidly slow). Collect profit. Or with one buddy focus fire and melt the Fatty with center of mass shots. Do it with three or more to insta-gib him. Just an FYI 1.8 isn't going to change that. Just give people more options for a style of play. Killing Heavies is just as easy as killing unhardened vehicles with any Large Rail. Easier in most cases since. Here, have some candy and a Like. :-) Forums > Game
Rusty Shallows 906	Posted - 2014.01.26 08:36:00 - [82] - Quote Leonid Tybalt wrote: More tank related QQ. Starting to get old. As long as the tank costs more than whatever dropsuit the other guy is using then they shouldn't be "equal". The tank should be superior. We had that QQ toward the end of Chromosome. Then we had new tank QQ towards all AV and people QQing over armor blaster HAVs. Now we just have more QQ under the Tanks514 banner. It was already old before you installed the game. Here, have some candy and a Like. :-) Forums > Game
The Attorney General 1894	Posted - 2014.01.26 08:49:00 - [83] - Quote OverIord Ulath wrote: A very reasonable response, but the point of the thread isn't even really a qualm against the different tank fits that are not soloable, or even against all tankers and their views on tanks. It's against the mindset that many tankers have across the various tank balance threads that because of their SP investment and fit costs compared to infantry, they feel that they should not be soloable by infantry. A specific jab at a specific group of people. I do appreciate your reasonable responses to valid issues brought up here, however it's a philosophy of game balance that I am disputing in this thread, not the current state of affairs in-game. Your thread, if not about the specific anti-infantry points, is than completely without merit. This mindset that you attribute to tankers has no bearing on how tanks are designed in game. Further, just because a subset of the tank using populace makes statements regarding balance does not make them correct, or the source for the current vehicular situation. You can make a jab all you like, but the only retort to someone "taking a jab at tankers" is to tell you plainly that if you can't drop tanks with AV you are a scrub, and that you need to get decent at the game before you start trying to talk about balance. So if you want to progress discussion, learn how to properly frame an argument, or if you want to troll, do that correctly. Don't half ass it and then get uppity when you don't get the right response. Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
Atheor Sindromer Ahrendee Mercenaries EoN. 28	Posted - 2014.01.26 09:34:00 - [84] - Quote Well that's bullshit because I take out tanks with RE's solo all the time. Love the sinner, hate the Sindromer.
AP Grasshopper The Unit 514 161	Posted - 2014.01.26 09:53:00 - [85] - Quote OverIord Ulath wrote: Then shouldn't they require the same number of people to run their tanks? I mean... If you are taking 3 people's attention away from focusing on winning the match just to deal with you, shouldn't you require the same number of people to distract them? Eve pilots can fly Titans entirely by themselves. Incase you didn't know, its a video game.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution Covert Intervention 8453	Posted - 2014.01.26 11:18:00 - [86] - Quote AP Grasshopper wrote: OverIord Ulath wrote: Then shouldn't they require the same number of people to run their tanks? I mean... If you are taking 3 people's attention away from focusing on winning the match just to deal with you, shouldn't you require the same number of people to distract them? Eve pilots can fly Titans entirely by themselves. Incase you didn't know, its a video game. A titan is not to subcaps as a tank is to infantry. For one, titans cost literally a thousand times as much as a subcap. When your tank costs 1000x more than an infantry suit, then we can compare them to titans. Oh, also - titans are laughably ineffective against subcaps. Tanks are very effective at killing infantry. This is a bad comparison and you should feel bad. Level 5 Proficiency 3 Forum Warrior Lenin of the glorious armoured revolution
Korvin Lomont United Pwnage Service RISE of LEGION 519	Posted - 2014.01.26 11:21:00 - [87] - Quote Henchmen21 wrote: Yet it only takes 1 person to fly/fire a titan. The inability to control two aspects of something 1000x smaller makes no sense. All that has to happen is either slow tanks down, or make prox mines stop giving warnings. I alone can do enough damage to make a tank run away. If running away wasn't an easy out I'd be able to finish it off. Also I'd reduce blaster range so they had to fear AV nades. To my my knowlegde EVE ships have large crews of mortal humans on board, but capsuleers simply don't care for them...
Sam Booty Valor Coalition 15	Posted - 2014.01.26 11:22:00 - [88] - Quote Make tanks base cost 1 million ISK, dropships 2 million ISK. Decrease efficiency of all armor/shield hardeners. Improve swarm launcher at close range (if you are close to target they should do like 50% more damage) and improve AV grenades they are so useless now. You could also develop new AV swarm launcher weapon which locks on to vehicles and allows delayed explosion. If you leave the game as it is you will just continue to lose players.
jordy mack Ultramarine Corp 131	Posted - 2014.01.26 11:52:00 - [89] - Quote Atiim wrote: Aizen Intiki wrote: Yes, I'm sure. Can I have DEV confirmation? :P No seriously, how do u know u jack in? Isn't that the reason we can never be pilots AND mercs. Also where do u plug the... yer nevermind.. Less QQ more PewPew
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2295	Posted - 2014.01.26 11:57:00 - [90] - Quote OverIord Ulath wrote: Then shouldn't they require the same number of people to run their tanks? I mean... If you are taking 3 people's attention away from focusing on winning the match just to deal with you, shouldn't you require the same number of people to distract them? In my tank i have 2 drones working below decks for the reloading of turrets and activating modules, other than that its me doing all the work You cant prove otherwise Intelligence is OP

Monkey MAC Lost Millennium 1657	Posted - 2014.01.26 12:07:00 - [91] - Quote Ok so we can see arguments from both sides quite well here, sonhere I go Tankers should be able to use their tank by thdm selves because > Tankerx invested their time and money < doesn't mean they should own everything on the field Tankers should be capable of sponging as significant amount of damage, but still be frightened of Infantry AV. So long as tanks are a one man operation, it should take no more than one man o equal skill to active suppressa tank with equal tier AV. (Suppress does not necessarily mean destroy). Tanks should be blowing up about 30% as often as infantry and priced accordingly. Tanks 514 I told you, I bloody well told you. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
hgghyujh Expert Intervention Caldari State 247	Posted - 2014.01.26 12:14:00 - [92] - Quote yea I've made this argument before, good luck with it, I've basicly just been satisfied by the fact that tanking is more about skill then proto god mode and so it really only takes one guy in a scrub tank to take out/distract that enemy tanker.
hgghyujh Expert Intervention Caldari State 247	Posted - 2014.01.26 12:17:00 - [93] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: Ok so we can see arguments from both sides quite well here, sonhere I go Tankers should be able to use their tank by thdm selves because > Tankerx invested their time and money < doesn't mean they should own everything on the field Tankers should be capable of sponging as significant amount of damage, but still be frightened of Infantry AV. So long as tanks are a one man operation, it should take no more than one man o equal skill to active suppressa tank with equal tier AV. (Suppress does not necessarily mean destroy). Tanks should be blowing up about 30% as often as infantry and priced accordingly. the only reason this isn't happening right now is that their is no incentive to go tank hunting, going bearly break even with ** for WP, is a **** reward for playing AV. If ccp would return WP for damage you would see a lot more dedicated AV on the feild making those tanks irrelivent for infantry.
Korvin Lomont United Pwnage Service RISE of LEGION 520	Posted - 2014.01.26 12:33:00 - [94] - Quote hgghyujh wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Ok so we can see arguments from both sides quite well here, sonhere I go Tankers should be able to use their tank by thdm selves because > Tankerx invested their time and money < doesn't mean they should own everything on the field Tankers should be capable of sponging as significant amount of damage, but still be frightened of Infantry AV. So long as tanks are a one man operation, it should take no more than one man o equal skill to active suppressa tank with equal tier AV. (Suppress does not necessarily mean destroy). Tanks should be blowing up about 30% as often as infantry and priced accordingly. the only reason this isn't happening right now is that their is no incentive to go tank hunting, going bearly break even with ** for WP, is a **** reward for playing AV. If ccp would return WP for damage you would see a lot more dedicated AV on the feild making those tanks irrelivent for infantry. This is questionable, because even if you get wp for damaging the tank won't be off the the field for long. And for this few seconds I should risk getting slaughered by infantry? The WP reward must be really great that the risk pays out in any way. My guess even with wp rewards we will see the same form of av (forges, RE's and jihad)...
Cooper Eudaemon DUST University Ivy League 149	Posted - 2014.01.26 12:37:00 - [95] - Quote What if you had to run a Pilot dropsuit to drive/fly a vehicle? Do you guys think that would balance things? You'd have to skill into the suit--to use advanced or prototype weapons or modules, you'd have to have an advanced or prototype suit. And it'd be a light suit, so you'd be paper thin outside of your vehicle. There could even be modules and equipment specific to the pilot suit, to provide a further ISK/SP sink. I need a break from Dust! I'll just go hop on the forums... I need a break from the forums! I'll just go hop on Dust...
Teilka Darkmist 76	Posted - 2014.01.26 12:41:00 - [96] - Quote OverIord Ulath wrote: Then shouldn't they require the same number of people to run their tanks? I mean... If you are taking 3 people's attention away from focusing on winning the match just to deal with you, shouldn't you require the same number of people to distract them? It should take more than one infantry to take out a tank, unless they're a heavy or have RE of course. ANd I agree that it should take more than one person to use a tank effectively. I even said so in a post a couple of days ago (which I can't find anymore as the forums don't have even such a basic function as a list of threads you've posted to). Cooper Eudaemon wrote: What if you had to run a Pilot dropsuit to drive/fly a vehicle? Do you guys think that would balance things? You'd have to skill into the suit--to use advanced or prototype weapons or modules, you'd have to have an advanced or prototype suit. And it'd be a light suit, so you'd be paper thin outside of your vehicle. There could even be modules and equipment specific to the pilot suit, to provide a further ISK/SP sink. Pilot suits are something that's going to happen eventually so I think this is something they're thinking of actually doing. And they will be light suits. Of course if they made it a requirement now, they'd have to rush out the pilot suits and the modules so that the vehicle drivers/pilots don't get (rightly) mad because they can't use their vehicles and the skills they've specced into. I think this will be a longer term goal rather than something we'll see soon. When I play as a sniper, I'm more likely to be nearer to the opponents redline than my own.
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2298	Posted - 2014.01.26 12:41:00 - [97] - Quote Cooper Eudaemon wrote: What if you had to run a Pilot dropsuit to drive/fly a vehicle? Do you guys think that would balance things? You'd have to skill into the suit--to use advanced or prototype weapons or modules, you'd have to have an advanced or prototype suit. And it'd be a light suit, so you'd be paper thin outside of your vehicle. There could even be modules and equipment specific to the pilot suit, to provide a further ISK/SP sink. The pilot suit is a light suit and tbh im expecting it not to have a weapon and maybe have mods that improve the overall vehicle in diff ways like dmg/hp/cooldowns/speed etc But i dont think having a basic/adv/proto to use proto would be fair, it just means use a basic suit you can put as much on it maybe to enhance the vehicle But i do agree with that you have to use a pilot suit to pilot a vehicle Intelligence is OP
Monkey MAC Lost Millennium 1657	Posted - 2014.01.26 12:43:00 - [98] - Quote hgghyujh wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Ok so we can see arguments from both sides quite well here, sonhere I go Tankers should be able to use their tank by thdm selves because > Tankerx invested their time and money < doesn't mean they should own everything on the field Tankers should be capable of sponging as significant amount of damage, but still be frightened of Infantry AV. So long as tanks are a one man operation, it should take no more than one man o equal skill to active suppressa tank with equal tier AV. (Suppress does not necessarily mean destroy). Tanks should be blowing up about 30% as often as infantry and priced accordingly. the only reason this isn't happening right now is that their is no incentive to go tank hunting, going bearly break even with ** for WP, is a **** reward for playing AV. If ccp would return WP for damage you would see a lot more dedicated AV on the feild making those tanks irrelivent for infantry. Yes adding back WP for damage would be a big step, but it wouldn't be the be all and end all. Tankers aren't scared of AV anymore, when Im in a tank Im not scared, tne only time AV has got me is when Ive tried to fit a HAV through a LAV sized hole. Ive seen tanks stop slaughtering Infantry to go and kill the swarm launcher, they charge directly into AV fire because they know they can. Tanks 514 I told you, I bloody well told you. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
Monkey MAC Lost Millennium 1657	Posted - 2014.01.26 12:47:00 - [99] - Quote Cooper Eudaemon wrote: What if you had to run a Pilot dropsuit to drive/fly a vehicle? Do you guys think that would balance things? You'd have to skill into the suit--to use advanced or prototype weapons or modules, you'd have to have an advanced or prototype suit. And it'd be a light suit, so you'd be paper thin outside of your vehicle. There could even be modules and equipment specific to the pilot suit, to provide a further ISK/SP sink. Provided their is a mlt variant, I see no prolem with HAV's or HAAV's , MAV's or MAAV'S requiring a pilot suit to run. Light vehicle shouldn't need them otherwise you are unfairly stopping the use of personal transport. Tanks 514 I told you, I bloody well told you. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
Teilka Darkmist 76	Posted - 2014.01.26 12:55:00 - [100] - Quote Korvin Lomont wrote: Henchmen21 wrote: Yet it only takes 1 person to fly/fire a titan. The inability to control two aspects of something 1000x smaller makes no sense. All that has to happen is either slow tanks down, or make prox mines stop giving warnings. I alone can do enough damage to make a tank run away. If running away wasn't an easy out I'd be able to finish it off. Also I'd reduce blaster range so they had to fear AV nades. To my my knowlegde EVE ships have large crews of mortal humans on board, but capsuleers simply don't care for them... I've seen it both ways about crews on capsuleer controlled ships. It seems some have crews and some don't. It, unfortunatly, doesn't seem to have any effect on how the ship actually flies. Personally I think it would be great if you could chose to have a human crew on your ship which includes a slight recurring cost (We're talking tens or hundreds of isk depending on the size) whilst you're actually undocked but which improves your stats a small amount. This would take into account how automated systems can only react to problems as they happen or after they happen. With a human you have an ability to predict where problems are going to happen based on information an automated system can't detect and interpret as it would be highly situational. How this feeds into tanks is, I think a tank should be useable as a one-man, automated system, but it should be most effective when it has a crew onboard, communicating with each other. Dropships should be better when they have a pilot and a co-pilot/gunner than they are with just a pilot. It should apply even more in Dust than in EVE as you have less time to react to events as they happen. In space you usually have kilometres between you and your opponent. On the ground you have metres. When I play as a sniper, I'm more likely to be nearer to the opponents redline than my own.

R F Gyro Clones 4u 1092	Posted - 2014.01.26 13:31:00 - [101] - Quote All the comparisons with Eve are essentially irrelevant from a gameplay perspective for one very simple reason. Eve doesn't have a cap of 16 players per side. RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
Teilka Darkmist 77	Posted - 2014.01.26 14:37:00 - [102] - Quote R F Gyro wrote: All the comparisons with Eve are essentially irrelevant from a gameplay perspective for one very simple reason. Eve doesn't have a cap of 16 players per side. Eve also doesn't have such small grids (relative to the size of the individual) or the need for each side to be balanced out before a fight starts. It also doesn't have people complaining about how someone in a battleship can alpha their frigate or the ability to return to the battle within a couple of second, you have to clone (assuming you're podded) get in a new ship, undock then fly to the engagement zone. And that's the shortest version of it. When I play as a sniper, I'm more likely to be nearer to the opponents redline than my own.
ADAM-OF-EVE Dead Man's Game 840	Posted - 2014.01.26 14:40:00 - [103] - Quote i made a huge post a while back suggesting this and how it could be implemented but it was trolled to death by the same 2 tankers who funnily enough on getting exactly what they wanted from tanks specced out of them https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99075&find
Harpyja Molon Labe. Public Disorder. 1141	Posted - 2014.01.26 14:50:00 - [104] - Quote Rusty Shallows wrote: Harpyja wrote: I wish my standard suit can take on a sentinel solo I hate how it takes teamwork or tactics to bring down those fatties Seriously, this is how stupid you all sound. Use one of the big Four-Rifles, have the proficiency at 3, stack complex damage mods, and if possible rake the head (it's a large target and we are stupidly slow). Collect profit. Or with one buddy focus fire and melt the Fatty with center of mass shots. Do it with three or more to insta-gib him. Just an FYI 1.8 isn't going to change that. Just give people more options for a style of play. Killing Heavies is just as easy as killing unhardened vehicles with any Large Rail. Easier in most cases since. Now apply this to AV. Stack some complex damage mods, prof 3 on forge guns with an IAFG, and shoot the rear of the tank. Profit. Or you can get a friend, where both of you are using breach instead, and instapop that unhardened tank before it can do anything. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
Harpyja Molon Labe. Public Disorder. 1141	Posted - 2014.01.26 14:57:00 - [105] - Quote R F Gyro wrote: All the comparisons with Eve are essentially irrelevant from a gameplay perspective for one very simple reason. Eve doesn't have a cap of 16 players per side. Dust has an artificial cap on team side. EVE has a real cap on fleet size. You only get as many people that show up. If 10 show up, you're limited to 10. If 500 show up, you're limited to 500. I don't see EVE pilots QQing when their fleet is destroyed 3:1. I don't see them QQing when the enemy fleet drops supercapitals and destroys all of their capitals because they didn't bring any supercapitals themselves. I find Dust and EVE similar. If you don't have sufficient AV but the enemy brought in tanks, then you should get screwed. This whole "balance on a 1v1 basis" is crap. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
Teilka Darkmist 78	Posted - 2014.01.26 15:09:00 - [106] - Quote Harpyja wrote: R F Gyro wrote: All the comparisons with Eve are essentially irrelevant from a gameplay perspective for one very simple reason. Eve doesn't have a cap of 16 players per side. Dust has an artificial cap on team side. EVE has a real cap on fleet size. You only get as many people that show up. If 10 show up, you're limited to 10. If 500 show up, you're limited to 500. I don't see EVE pilots QQing when their fleet is destroyed 3:1. I don't see them QQing when the enemy fleet drops supercapitals and destroys all of their capitals because they didn't bring any supercapitals themselves. I find Dust and EVE similar. If you don't have sufficient AV but the enemy brought in tanks, then you should get screwed. This whole "balance on a 1v1 basis" is crap. There is a cap you missed in EVE. The 'Too many people in system' cap. You only have to look back a week, or possibly two, to see that in effect. Of course that's one the of few times that I've seen that those involved are petitioning CCP for their stuff back as the destruction was caused by them not rezzing the grid in time to react to incoming fire. I have limited sympathy for them though. Everyone playing knows what happens when you keep piling into an already overloaded system. When I play as a sniper, I'm more likely to be nearer to the opponents redline than my own.
Soldiersaint Deepspace Digital 693	Posted - 2014.01.26 15:45:00 - [107] - Quote OverIord Ulath wrote: Aizen Intiki wrote: We plug ourselves into the HAV, so we can control many of the functions at the same time. Degraging ourselves to mortal ways of life is silly. no. Pointless blanket excuse that means nothing. Actual, logical, gameplay balance response requested. Screw your flawed logic. lore is far more important. im sick and tired of games sucking because of this balance trash. im no tank driver but i know for a fact that in the future it is more than possible for a tanker to jack in to his tank and control all functions.
Monkey MAC Lost Millennium 1657	Posted - 2014.01.26 15:45:00 - [108] - Quote Harpyja wrote: R F Gyro wrote: All the comparisons with Eve are essentially irrelevant from a gameplay perspective for one very simple reason. Eve doesn't have a cap of 16 players per side. Dust has an artificial cap on team side. EVE has a real cap on fleet size. You only get as many people that show up. If 10 show up, you're limited to 10. If 500 show up, you're limited to 500. I don't see EVE pilots QQing when their fleet is destroyed 3:1. I don't see them QQing when the enemy fleet drops supercapitals and destroys all of their capitals because they didn't bring any supercapitals themselves. I find Dust and EVE similar. If you don't have sufficient AV but the enemy brought in tanks, then you should get screwed. This whole "balance on a 1v1 basis" is crap. The reason EvE pilots don't QQ is because if you didn't bring the 200 frigates needed to take down a single captial, you make sure you do next time. But in dust if you didn't bring the 18 AV to a 16v16 match you need to bring down the 6 tanks you brought, that's not your fault. Until the game has a "real cap" on force strength anything where 1 unit has a higher force strength than another produces linear escalation battles. Which are no fun. In EvE if you don't need to a super captial to beet a super capital, because if you really want that win you can bring enough frigates to just swamp the enemy. Tanks 514 I told you, I bloody well told you. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 3956	Posted - 2014.01.26 15:52:00 - [109] - Quote Soldiersaint wrote: OverIord Ulath wrote: Aizen Intiki wrote: We plug ourselves into the HAV, so we can control many of the functions at the same time. Degraging ourselves to mortal ways of life is silly. no. Pointless blanket excuse that means nothing. Actual, logical, gameplay balance response requested. Screw your flawed logic. lore is far more important. im sick and tired of games sucking because of this balance trash. im no tank driver but i know for a fact that in the future it is more than possible for a tanker to jack in to his tank and control all functions. If lore is more important than balance, than shouldn't my Swarm Launcher have a max lock range of 600m? It is a Caldari weapon. Next On To-Do List: Particle Cannons To create a vehicle free environment. There can only be one!
Harpyja Molon Labe. Public Disorder. 1142	Posted - 2014.01.26 15:57:00 - [110] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: Harpyja wrote: R F Gyro wrote: All the comparisons with Eve are essentially irrelevant from a gameplay perspective for one very simple reason. Eve doesn't have a cap of 16 players per side. Dust has an artificial cap on team side. EVE has a real cap on fleet size. You only get as many people that show up. If 10 show up, you're limited to 10. If 500 show up, you're limited to 500. I don't see EVE pilots QQing when their fleet is destroyed 3:1. I don't see them QQing when the enemy fleet drops supercapitals and destroys all of their capitals because they didn't bring any supercapitals themselves. I find Dust and EVE similar. If you don't have sufficient AV but the enemy brought in tanks, then you should get screwed. This whole "balance on a 1v1 basis" is crap. The reason EvE pilots don't QQ is because if you didn't bring the 200 frigates needed to take down a single captial, you make sure you do next time. But in dust if you didn't bring the 18 AV to a 16v16 match you need to bring down the 6 tanks you brought, that's not your fault. Until the game has a "real cap" on force strength anything where 1 unit has a higher force strength than another produces linear escalation battles. Which are no fun. In EvE if you don't need to a super captial to beet a super capital, because if you really want that win you can bring enough frigates to just swamp the enemy. It's still all the same. If you were the only AV in one match, then you'll ask a friend to join you next. Also, 18 AV for 6 tanks is flawed. Who ever told you we were asking for three unique AV per individual tank? Even if there are 6 tanks, just get three AV and concentrate fire on one tank. Then continue with the rest. Nobody told you that you had to destroy them all at once. You shouldn't have to have more than half of a squad dedicated to AV, regardless of how many vehicles are out there. Three people coordinating with breach forge guns will instapop any unhardened tank and send hardened tanks running for the redline. The latter currently isn't rewarding, but should be with WP for damage dealt. "But tanks don't need teamwork!" Neither do solo ratting battleships in null sec in EVE. But it does take either some very fancy skill to solo one with a frigate, or a small gang of frigates cooperating and using teamwork to bring down said battleship. Also, a tank without a squad dies rather easily. Without a squad to provide intel on enemy tanks and AV, you are more likely to get ambushed from behind while your hardeners aren't running. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32

Baal Omniscient L.O.T.I.S. D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 1013	Posted - 2014.01.26 16:02:00 - [111] - Quote Harpyja wrote: I wish my standard suit can take on a sentinel solo I hate how it takes teamwork or tactics to bring down those fatties Seriously, this is how stupid you all sound. A standard suit CAN solo a heavy. With just about any weapon in the game. From just about any range in the game. All depending on player skill. When infantry can claim the same with tanks, then you can use this argument. To apply to L.O.T.I.S. or to squad with us, join our public chat channel: L.O.T.I.S.
Kierkegaard Soren Forsaken Immortals Top Men. 143	Posted - 2014.01.26 16:05:00 - [112] - Quote All I'm going to add is this observation for you all to consider: If it takes a minimum of two infantrymen to run an AV fit to kill one tank of any description, and you run into an ambush game that has six tanks deployed by the enemy within the first minute of initial deployment, then you're looking at twelve of your team giving up on anti infantry duties to deal with those six reds sitting in six red tanks. Now, we can argue all day about whether that's a good thing or not from a balance perspective, I simply want to add that when this scenario occurs (and it occurs a lot in pubs) then the team with the six tanks wins. Dominates, even. Not even close. Not even fun. And that is the key thing here. It's not fun to run AV anymore. Tanks are cheap, fast, hard. One of them is a pain. Two of them are a serious problem. Anything above that and you're looking at a total wipe out. I honestly don't know the solution to this. Buffing swarms back to the old damage specs but keeping the lock on range seems fair. Plasma cannons need a clear role definition, one way or the other, and forge guns...hmm. They're ok. You needs a proto one and the skills to use it to make it work, but it works. Make tank vs AV dynamic and fun for both sides. Reward individual skill and teamwork. Do something, CCP. Dedicated Commando. "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." -Paul Atreides.
Henchmen21 Planet Express LLC 473	Posted - 2014.01.26 16:06:00 - [113] - Quote R F Gyro wrote: All the comparisons with Eve are essentially irrelevant from a gameplay perspective for one very simple reason. Eve doesn't have a cap of 16 players per side. Considering all the tech in dust, is from EVE it is relevant, a civilization at that tech level wouldn't randomly make things more complicated for the sake of fairness to the enemy. Henchmen21: Infantry Gotyougood Ufkr: Vehicles
OverIord Ulath Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 75	Posted - 2014.01.26 16:09:00 - [114] - Quote Leonid Tybalt wrote: More tank related QQ. Starting to get old. As long as the tank costs more than whatever dropsuit the other guy is using then they shouldn't be "equal". The tank should be superior. If you think the premise of this thread is QQ, then you either didn't read through the thread or you have horrific reading comprehension. Either way, you do not know that of which you speak. So please waste your time elsewhere, preferably somewhere that you actually understand what is going on.
Harpyja Molon Labe. Public Disorder. 1143	Posted - 2014.01.26 16:12:00 - [115] - Quote Kierkegaard Soren wrote: All I'm going to add is this observation for you all to consider: If it takes a minimum of two infantrymen to run an AV fit to kill one tank of any description, and you run into an ambush game that has six tanks deployed by the enemy within the first minute of initial deployment, then you're looking at twelve of your team giving up on anti infantry duties to deal with those six reds sitting in six red tanks. Now, we can argue all day about whether that's a good thing or not from a balance perspective, I simply want to add that when this scenario occurs (and it occurs a lot in pubs) then the team with the six tanks wins. Dominates, even. Not even close. Not even fun. And that is the key thing here. It's not fun to run AV anymore. Tanks are cheap, fast, hard. One of them is a pain. Two of them are a serious problem. Anything above that and you're looking at a total wipe out. I honestly don't know the solution to this. Buffing swarms back to the old damage specs but keeping the lock on range seems fair. Plasma cannons need a clear role definition, one way or the other, and forge guns...hmm. They're ok. You needs a proto one and the skills to use it to make it work, but it works. Make tank vs AV dynamic and fun for both sides. Reward individual skill and teamwork. Do something, CCP. Wrong. Who told you that you'd need to destroy all tanks at once? You only need two or three AV, concentrate on one tank, then move on. If it's ambush, stop running outside and find a defensible building. Force their 10 infantrymen to face your 13 infantrymen indoors where their tanks can't do anything but roll over each other. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
OverIord Ulath Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 77	Posted - 2014.01.26 16:22:00 - [116] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Rusty Shallows wrote: Harpyja wrote: I wish my standard suit can take on a sentinel solo I hate how it takes teamwork or tactics to bring down those fatties Seriously, this is how stupid you all sound. Use one of the big Four-Rifles, have the proficiency at 3, stack complex damage mods, and if possible rake the head (it's a large target and we are stupidly slow). Collect profit. Or with one buddy focus fire and melt the Fatty with center of mass shots. Do it with three or more to insta-gib him. Just an FYI 1.8 isn't going to change that. Just give people more options for a style of play. Killing Heavies is just as easy as killing unhardened vehicles with any Large Rail. Easier in most cases since. Now apply this to AV. Stack some complex damage mods, prof 3 on forge guns with an IAFG, and shoot the rear of the tank. Profit. Or you can get a friend, where both of you are using breach instead, and instapop that unhardened tank before it can do anything. 1. Getting behind a tank in a heavy suit requires either a really stupid tanker, luck or teamwork. 2. No one should have to specc into one type of fit (be that tank, DS, dropsuit, what-have-you) in order to take out something else. Any fit (or hull) should be vulnerable to any fit (or hull) if the proper weapons are used. Harpyja wrote: R F Gyro wrote: All the comparisons with Eve are essentially irrelevant from a gameplay perspective for one very simple reason. Eve doesn't have a cap of 16 players per side. Dust has an artificial cap on team side. EVE has a real cap on fleet size. You only get as many people that show up. If 10 show up, you're limited to 10. If 500 show up, you're limited to 500. I don't see EVE pilots QQing when their fleet is destroyed 3:1. I don't see them QQing when the enemy fleet drops supercapitals and destroys all of their capitals because they didn't bring any supercapitals themselves. I find Dust and EVE similar. If you don't have sufficient AV but the enemy brought in tanks, then you should get screwed. This whole "balance on a 1v1 basis" is crap. You don't see Eve pilots complaining because their space based MMO was built around the idea of uneven odds. Since CCP made Eve, it could determine those standards. However, CCP didn't invent lobby shooters or FPS games or even any of the concepts behind them, they basically followed the template that other shooters had left behind while adding their own flavor, lore and art style. That way, the already solidly established FPS playerbase would be able to transition here. For... well... probably not the last time.... GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD. You can supply lore, ideas, interaction, even some physics between two different games of two different genres, but you cannot balance them in the same way. It makes no sense to even attempt to balance them based on the same ideals, and attempting to do so is futile.
OverIord Ulath Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 77	Posted - 2014.01.26 16:27:00 - [117] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: OverIord Ulath wrote: Then shouldn't they require the same number of people to run their tanks? I mean... If you are taking 3 people's attention away from focusing on winning the match just to deal with you, shouldn't you require the same number of people to distract them? In my tank i have 2 drones working below decks for the reloading of turrets and activating modules, other than that its me doing all the work You cant prove otherwise As long as they count towards the total number of people allowed on your team, I'm fine with that.
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution Covert Intervention 4147	Posted - 2014.01.26 16:31:00 - [118] - Quote OverIord Ulath wrote: Aizen Intiki wrote: We plug ourselves into the HAV, so we can control many of the functions at the same time. Degraging ourselves to mortal ways of life is silly. no. Pointless blanket excuse that means nothing. Actual, logical, gameplay balance response requested. Actually lorewise he's correct as far as I know. Capsuleers can control ships mostly by themselves by inking them together. Should be a very similar thing going on in DUST. The thing I wish they had in this game is a animation, or at least some time to get into, and out of vehicles instead of this instant spawn in/spawn out crap.
OverIord Ulath Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 77	Posted - 2014.01.26 16:33:00 - [119] - Quote Ghosts Chance wrote: And this thread has become the reason why you dont ask this question on the forums, but like the hundred or so threads that came before it someone will simply refuse to use the search function and start this up all over again Dunno why you keep posting, you are being ignored because YOU refuse to use that search function you are so excited about and link me to one good solid reason that makes sense in a lobby shooter why if it takes 3 infantry to kill a vehicle, it should still only take 1 person to drive said vehicle. Until you do that, consider yourself invisible.
OverIord Ulath Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 77	Posted - 2014.01.26 16:34:00 - [120] - Quote Sgt Kirk wrote: OverIord Ulath wrote: Aizen Intiki wrote: We plug ourselves into the HAV, so we can control many of the functions at the same time. Degraging ourselves to mortal ways of life is silly. no. Pointless blanket excuse that means nothing. Actual, logical, gameplay balance response requested. Actually lorewise he's correct as far as I know. Capsuleers can control ships mostly by themselves by inking them together. Should be a very similar thing going on in DUST. The thing I wish they had in this game is a animation, or at least some time to get into, and out of vehicles instead of this instant spawn in/spawn out crap. I was not referring to the lack of lore accuracy, I was referring to lore being a blanket excuse for broken mechanics.

Monkey MAC Lost Millennium 1663	Posted - 2014.01.26 16:47:00 - [121] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Harpyja wrote: R F Gyro wrote: All the comparisons with Eve are essentially irrelevant from a gameplay perspective for one very simple reason. Eve doesn't have a cap of 16 players per side. Dust has an artificial cap on team side. EVE has a real cap on fleet size. You only get as many people that show up. If 10 show up, you're limited to 10. If 500 show up, you're limited to 500. I don't see EVE pilots QQing when their fleet is destroyed 3:1. I don't see them QQing when the enemy fleet drops supercapitals and destroys all of their capitals because they didn't bring any supercapitals themselves. I find Dust and EVE similar. If you don't have sufficient AV but the enemy brought in tanks, then you should get screwed. This whole "balance on a 1v1 basis" is crap. The reason EvE pilots don't QQ is because if you didn't bring the 200 frigates needed to take down a single captial, you make sure you do next time. But in dust if you didn't bring the 18 AV to a 16v16 match you need to bring down the 6 tanks you brought, that's not your fault. Until the game has a "real cap" on force strength anything where 1 unit has a higher force strength than another produces linear escalation battles. Which are no fun. In EvE if you don't need to a super captial to beet a super capital, because if you really want that win you can bring enough frigates to just swamp the enemy. It's still all the same. If you were the only AV in one match, then you'll ask a friend to join you next. Also, 18 AV for 6 tanks is flawed. Who ever told you we were asking for three unique AV per individual tank? Even if there are 6 tanks, just get three AV and concentrate fire on one tank. Then continue with the rest. Nobody told you that you had to destroy them all at once. You shouldn't have to have more than half of a squad dedicated to AV, regardless of how many vehicles are out there. Three people coordinating with breach forge guns will instapop any unhardened tank and send hardened tanks running for the redline. The latter currently isn't rewarding, but should be with WP for damage dealt. "But tanks don't need teamwork!" Neither do solo ratting battleships in null sec in EVE. But it does take either some very fancy skill to solo one with a frigate, or a small gang of frigates cooperating and using teamwork to bring down said battleship. Also, a tank without a squad dies rather easily. Without a squad to provide intel on enemy tanks and AV, you are more likely to get ambushed from behind while your hardeners aren't running. If 6 tanks all turn up together I would need 18 AV to take out said tanks, with 3 AV I would be incapable of destroying tanks at rate fast enough to fend them off as is AV job. Its simple math if 1 HAV = 3 AV and 1AV = 1/2 AI then who ever fields the most tanks wins. Its linear escalation, just the Act of changing into an AV fit to counter of tank lowers my teams force strength. This can be clearly evidenced when a team can win with 6 tanks and a few mlt scouts. Because tanks have a force strength greater than 1, therfore unless you deploy a tank you will be overwhelmed. Nyan San have seen this, What thenFrench have seen this, Ultimate Pwnage Servicd have seen this, every corp of old who people complained at for running proto brick tanked gallante logis now also run tanks. Because mathematically you can win with 6 tanks. 1 team without 6 tanks = 16 1 team with 6 tanks = 22 1 team without 6 tanks and 3AV = 13 22 > 13 Tanks 514 I told you, I bloody well told you. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
Lynn Beck Granite Mercenary Division Top Men. 592	Posted - 2014.01.26 16:49:00 - [122] - Quote I din't think any of the halfway decent tankers wanted you to dedicate a squad to kill 1 tank... We just wanted a fair fight. In 1.3-1.6 the fight was 'my wyrrkomi swarm is a 2 shot kill, and if 1.5 seconds is too long, i throw 1 Lai dai AV nade!' Even against 2 hardeners, 1 max skill rep going, AND a polycrystalline plate. In 1.6 it took a MINIMUM of 5 mil to outrep a single militia swarm for 20 seconds. Does this NOT seem flawed to you? What us REAL tankers wanted was for 1 Aver to be a THREAT, but not a FUCKINGG IWIN BUTTON +200 WP. Under 28db Officially nerfproof (predicting CR nerf February '14) I have a God, His name is Dakka.
R F Gyro Clones 4u 1092	Posted - 2014.01.26 17:01:00 - [123] - Quote Henchmen21 wrote: Considering all the tech in dust, is from EVE it is relevant, a civilization at that tech level wouldn't randomly make things more complicated for the sake of fairness to the enemy. Err...... last time I checked, Dust was a computer game. RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
Monkey MAC Lost Millennium 1664	Posted - 2014.01.26 17:16:00 - [124] - Quote Lynn Beck wrote: I din't think any of the halfway decent tankers wanted you to dedicate a squad to kill 1 tank... We just wanted a fair fight. In 1.3-1.6 the fight was 'my wyrrkomi swarm is a 2 shot kill, and if 1.5 seconds is too long, i throw 1 Lai dai AV nade!' Even against 2 hardeners, 1 max skill rep going, AND a polycrystalline plate. In 1.6 it took a MINIMUM of 5 mil to outrep a single militia swarm for 20 seconds. Does this NOT seem flawed to you? What us REAL tankers wanted was for 1 Aver to be a THREAT, but not a FUCKINGG IWIN BUTTON +200 WP. That exactly what halfway decent AV wants to, we don't just wanna go, oh look a tank, boom. We want, sht tank, get the AV guy. Hold of that tank as long as you can, Ill call in the cavalry. we want comamders to go GET THAT TANK THE HELL OFF MY MEN not HEY JOE 200 WP THERE IF YOU WANT IT not TANK, DROP WEAPONS LADS, SUICIDING WILL BE LESS PAINFUL Tanks 514* I told you, I bloody well told you. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
R F Gyro Clones 4u 1093	Posted - 2014.01.26 17:26:00 - [125] - Quote Lynn Beck wrote: I din't think any of the halfway decent tankers wanted you to dedicate a squad to kill 1 tank... We just wanted a fair fight. In 1.3-1.6 the fight was 'my wyrrkomi swarm is a 2 shot kill, and if 1.5 seconds is too long, i throw 1 Lai dai AV nade!' Even against 2 hardeners, 1 max skill rep going, AND a polycrystalline plate. In 1.6 it took a MINIMUM of 5 mil to outrep a single militia swarm for 20 seconds. Does this NOT seem flawed to you? What us REAL tankers wanted was for 1 Aver to be a THREAT, but not a FUCKINGG IWIN BUTTON +200 WP. I'll pick up on "we just wanted a fair fight"; I'm not ignoring the rest of the post, but that is the heart of the disagreement I think. The problem is agreeing what "fair" means. For many tankers it means "my several million ISK should be equivalent to several million ISK in dropsuits". For most infantry it means "your one place in a team of 16 should be equivalent to anyone else's one space". Now, no-one I respect is saying it was balanced and fair before. Cheap militia AV shouldn't destroy expensive tanks with expensive prototype modules. But one player with an unlimited budget for AV fittings should be able to go one-on-one against one player with an unlimited budget for tanks and fittings. Beyond that, I'd love to see real tanks that require a crew of 3 to operate, and that require an AV team of three to counter. That would be just epic. RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 511	Posted - 2014.01.26 17:27:00 - [126] - Quote OverIord Ulath wrote: Then shouldn't they require the same number of people to run their tanks? I mean... If you are taking 3 people's attention away from focusing on winning the match just to deal with you, shouldn't you require the same number of people to distract them? That's 2+ idiots, or one competent person.... for your clarification. I blow tanks up solo quite often. On foot. What then about Proto suits? Same thing. 2+ idiots or one competent player. When tanks can perform just like a Proto suit, follow you inside of buildings, dodge behind all cover, and follow you through any terrain, is the day that tanks will require more than one person to pilot. So far, any competent ground troop knows how to force tanks to only be able to engage them when they want to engage the tank. If you can read this, it means you are reading. Unless you are skimming
Lynn Beck Granite Mercenary Division Top Men. 593	Posted - 2014.01.26 17:56:00 - [127] - Quote R F Gyro wrote: Lynn Beck wrote: I din't think any of the halfway decent tankers wanted you to dedicate a squad to kill 1 tank... We just wanted a fair fight. In 1.3-1.6 the fight was 'my wyrrkomi swarm is a 2 shot kill, and if 1.5 seconds is too long, i throw 1 Lai dai AV nade!' Even against 2 hardeners, 1 max skill rep going, AND a polycrystalline plate. In 1.6 it took a MINIMUM of 5 mil to outrep a single militia swarm for 20 seconds. Does this NOT seem flawed to you? What us REAL tankers wanted was for 1 Aver to be a THREAT, but not a FUCKINGG IWIN BUTTON +200 WP. I'll pick up on "we just wanted a fair fight"; I'm not ignoring the rest of the post, but that is the heart of the disagreement I think. The problem is agreeing what "fair" means. For many tankers it means "my several million ISK should be equivalent to several million ISK in dropsuits". For most infantry it means "your one place in a team of 16 should be equivalent to anyone else's one space". Now, no-one I respect is saying it was balanced and fair before. Cheap militia AV shouldn't destroy expensive tanks with expensive prototype modules. But one player with an unlimited budget for AV fittings should be able to go one-on-one against one player with an unlimited budget for tanks and fittings. Beyond that, I'd love to see real tanks that require a crew of 3 to operate, and that require an AV team of three to counter. That would be just epic. That would be a nice thing to have, as a secondary, super tanked tank with 20k base hp, and 2 med turrets, along with a main large turret. We still need to think of the people who don't have their own dedicated squad, the people who don't have the 6 mill isk to field such a monstrosity. We need a 1 man operated tank with minimal support required to operate. Under 28db Officially nerfproof (predicting CR nerf February '14) I have a God, His name is Dakka.
Teilka Darkmist 82	Posted - 2014.01.26 18:13:00 - [128] - Quote R F Gyro wrote: Henchmen21 wrote: Considering all the tech in dust, is from EVE it is relevant, a civilization at that tech level wouldn't randomly make things more complicated for the sake of fairness to the enemy. Err...... last time I checked, Dust was a computer game. It's a computer game that's steeped in the lore of a ten year old persistent universe. That's based on it in fact. It has to fit in the lore of EVE, or it may as well remain separate from it. In fact if it isn't consistent with EVE lore. It should have nothing to do with it at all, not even use the name, never mind the races and concepts. When I play as a sniper, I'm more likely to be nearer to the opponents redline than my own.
True Adamance Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 6174	Posted - 2014.01.26 18:23:00 - [129] - Quote OverIord Ulath wrote: Then shouldn't they require the same number of people to run their tanks? I mean... If you are taking 3 people's attention away from focusing on winning the match just to deal with you, shouldn't you require the same number of people to distract them? Or instead of complaining in this manner you could consider redesigning tank to be top tier anti vehicle units, high cost, high SP, powerful anti tank/vehicle guns, while loosing the capacity to roll anti infantry. This way they can remain powerful and do their assigned role. "My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity."
Teilka Darkmist 82	Posted - 2014.01.26 18:25:00 - [130] - Quote True Adamance wrote: OverIord Ulath wrote: Then shouldn't they require the same number of people to run their tanks? I mean... If you are taking 3 people's attention away from focusing on winning the match just to deal with you, shouldn't you require the same number of people to distract them? Or instead of complaining in this manner you could consider redesigning tank to be top tier anti vehicle units, high cost, high SP, powerful anti tank/vehicle guns, while loosing the capacity to roll anti infantry. Unless they roll over infantry. That should be pretty deadly still. When I play as a sniper, I'm more likely to be nearer to the opponents redline than my own.

Cat Merc Ahrendee Mercenaries EoN. 6008	Posted - 2014.01.26 18:27:00 - [131] - Quote OverIord Ulath wrote: Then shouldn't they require the same number of people to run their tanks? I mean... If you are taking 3 people's attention away from focusing on winning the match just to deal with you, shouldn't you require the same number of people to distract them? Sorry, tankers want to have their cake and eat it too. Shield regeneration bonus for Gallente Assault is about as useful as Sharpshooter for Nova Knives. Tuna > Tacos
Onesimus Tarsus 964	Posted - 2014.01.26 18:38:00 - [132] - Quote Cat Merc wrote: OverIord Ulath wrote: Then shouldn't they require the same number of people to run their tanks? I mean... If you are taking 3 people's attention away from focusing on winning the match just to deal with you, shouldn't you require the same number of people to distract them? Sorry, tankers want to have their cake and eat it too. Tankers want their cake and to blow your cake away with minimal effort and danger. I actually put down my controller and dance a little jig whenever I see a tank blow up. Blue or Red. Free, on-demand Respecs. Because it doesn't matter and no one should care. Matchmaking by KDR proximity. :)
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 512	Posted - 2014.01.26 18:42:00 - [133] - Quote Onesimus Tarsus wrote: Cat Merc wrote: OverIord Ulath wrote: Then shouldn't they require the same number of people to run their tanks? I mean... If you are taking 3 people's attention away from focusing on winning the match just to deal with you, shouldn't you require the same number of people to distract them? Sorry, tankers want to have their cake and eat it too. Tankers want their cake and to blow your cake away with minimal effort and danger. I actually put down my controller and dance a little jig whenever I see a tank blow up. Blue or Red. If you want to learn how to best blow up a tank, the best way to learn is... by driving one yourself. If you can read this, it means you are reading. Unless you are skimming
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 3958	Posted - 2014.01.26 18:44:00 - [134] - Quote Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote: If you want to blow up a tank, the best way to is... by driving one yourself. Fixed. Next On To-Do List: Particle Cannons To create a vehicle free environment. There can only be one!
True Adamance Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 6175	Posted - 2014.01.26 18:56:00 - [135] - Quote Teilka Darkmist wrote: True Adamance wrote: OverIord Ulath wrote: Then shouldn't they require the same number of people to run their tanks? I mean... If you are taking 3 people's attention away from focusing on winning the match just to deal with you, shouldn't you require the same number of people to distract them? Or instead of complaining in this manner you could consider redesigning tank to be top tier anti vehicle units, high cost, high SP, powerful anti tank/vehicle guns, while loosing the capacity to roll anti infantry. Unless they roll over infantry. That should be pretty deadly still. Yup I lament the fact my massive bulk and iron treads cannot simply crush infantry underfoot. "My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity."
Rusty Shallows 910	Posted - 2014.01.26 19:28:00 - [136] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Rusty Shallows wrote: Harpyja wrote: I wish my standard suit can take on a sentinel solo I hate how it takes teamwork or tactics to bring down those fatties Seriously, this is how stupid you all sound. Use one of the big Four-Rifles, have the proficiency at 3, stack complex damage mods, and if possible rake the head (it's a large target and we are stupidly slow). Collect profit. Or with one buddy focus fire and melt the Fatty with center of mass shots. Do it with three or more to insta-gib him. Just an FYI 1.8 isn't going to change that. Just give people more options for a style of play. Killing Heavies is just as easy as killing unhardened vehicles with any Large Rail. Easier in most cases since. Now apply this to AV. Stack some complex damage mods, prof 3 on forge guns with an IAFG, and shoot the rear of the tank. Profit. Or you can get a friend, where both of you are using breach instead, and instapop that unhardened tank before it can do anything. A few points: Headshots can happen in every direction. Rear HAV shots aren't even on all parts of the model. I'd CCP made all Large Turret hits count as critical damage then yes. A solo Forge Gun has never even come close to killing a HAV as a similarly fitted Slayer fit on Infantry Frames. The gap on TTK is huge even with the old assault Forge Guns and maxed skills. You are correct about the Breaches. Although again infantry are forced to jump through hoops for that rear shot and easily thwarted by enemy infantry or a HAV pilot who keeps mobile. Heavy Frames aren't even 1/10th as great as you make them out to be. HAVs can be God-Mode most of the time, Heavy Frame can at best be Ultra-Deadly-Mode against a Scout on open ground in from of him. At least the Scout has a chance. That isn't the case with Infantry facing HAVs. Here, have some candy and a Like. :-) Forums > Game
Rusty Shallows 910	Posted - 2014.01.26 19:45:00 - [137] - Quote Teilka Darkmist wrote: I even said so in a post a couple of days ago (which I can't find anymore as the forums don't have even such a basic function as a list of threads Under your posting Portrait to the left of your name is a Right Triangle. That's a hidden menu. Click on it and you can view your own posts. It also has a convenient Tea Party function that allows you to selectively ignore other people. I also provide instruction on how to use the Three Seashells. Here, have some candy and a Like. :-) Forums > Game
R F Gyro Clones 4u 1097	Posted - 2014.01.26 19:47:00 - [138] - Quote Lynn Beck wrote: That would be a nice thing to have, as a secondary, super tanked tank with 20k base hp, and 2 med turrets, along with a main large turret. We still need to think of the people who don't have their own dedicated squad, the people who don't have the 6 mill isk to field such a monstrosity. We need a 1 man operated tank with minimal support required to operate. Yep, I agree. Medium Attack Vehicles. Slightly tougher and slightly slower than a LAV, with a single large turret. Alternatively, allow the current HAVs to be operated in either solo or crewed mode. In solo mode they are fairly weak and slow; in crewed mode they are beasts. RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
Teilka Darkmist 85	Posted - 2014.01.26 19:57:00 - [139] - Quote Rusty Shallows wrote: Teilka Darkmist wrote: I even said so in a post a couple of days ago (which I can't find anymore as the forums don't have even such a basic function as a list of threads Under your posting Portrait to the left of your name is a Right Triangle. That's a hidden menu. Click on it and you can view your own posts. It also has a convenient Tea Party function that allows you to selectively ignore other people. I also provide instruction on how to use the Three Seashells. I started to work that out after I'd posted here. It would still be nice to have a user control panel that made it more obvious. As to the three seashells go right ahead and explain. And the female variant please. It's useless for me to know about the male one. When I play as a sniper, I'm more likely to be nearer to the opponents redline than my own.
Rusty Shallows 910	Posted - 2014.01.26 19:59:00 - [140] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: OverIord Ulath wrote: Then shouldn't they require the same number of people to run their tanks? I mean... If you are taking 3 people's attention away from focusing on winning the match just to deal with you, shouldn't you require the same number of people to distract them? In my tank i have 2 drones working below decks for the reloading of turrets and activating modules, other than that its me doing all the work You cant prove otherwise Takahiro are you really trying to use a Fluff Argument against a Team Player Count Argument? One position is based on competitive game balance and the other personalized game fiction. At least the guys who went ape-$&@-Ñ over a typo on the Caldari Sentinel had documentation. You're just making stuff up to justify a position. Fluff is never a good reason for bad game design. Here, have some candy and a Like. :-) Forums > Game

Rusty Shallows 910	Posted - 2014.01.26 20:08:00 - [141] - Quote Teilka Darkmist wrote: As to the three seashells go right ahead and explain. And the female variant please. It's useless for me to know about the male one. Calling my bluff, well played. Okay you win. Here, have some candy and a Like. :-) Forums > Game
Teilka Darkmist 85	Posted - 2014.01.26 20:11:00 - [142] - Quote Rusty Shallows wrote: Teilka Darkmist wrote: As to the three seashells go right ahead and explain. And the female variant please. It's useless for me to know about the male one. Calling my bluff, well played. Okay you win. Is that canon or just something she made up? Also, well played yourself, I didn't know that was out there. When I play as a sniper, I'm more likely to be nearer to the opponents redline than my own.
Rusty Shallows 910	Posted - 2014.01.26 20:27:00 - [143] - Quote Teilka Darkmist wrote: Rusty Shallows wrote: Teilka Darkmist wrote: As to the three seashells go right ahead and explain. And the female variant please. It's useless for me to know about the male one. Calling my bluff, well played. Okay you win. Is that canon or just something she made up? Also, well played yourself, I didn't know that was out there. Demolition Man (1993). Sorry I keep forgetting each year that passes the movie become more of a cult classic. Here, have some candy and a Like. :-) Forums > Game
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 3968	Posted - 2014.01.26 20:50:00 - [144] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: In my tank i have 2 drones working blow decks for the reloading of turrets and activating modules, other than that its me doing all the work You cant prove otherwise With no DEV confirmation you can't even prove yourself correct. Even if, these alleged drones are automated and their functions are still managed by 1 player, so that argument is both incorrect and irrelevant. Next On To-Do List: Particle Cannons To create a vehicle free environment. There can only be one!
Teilka Darkmist 85	Posted - 2014.01.26 20:56:00 - [145] - Quote Rusty Shallows wrote: Teilka Darkmist wrote: Rusty Shallows wrote: Teilka Darkmist wrote: As to the three seashells go right ahead and explain. And the female variant please. It's useless for me to know about the male one. Calling my bluff, well played. Okay you win. Is that canon or just something she made up? Also, well played yourself, I didn't know that was out there. Demolition Man (1993). Sorry I keep forgetting each year that passes the movie become more of a cult classic. I've seen Demolition Man. I was wondering if the explanation was canon. When I play as a sniper, I'm more likely to be nearer to the opponents redline than my own.
Rusty Shallows 914	Posted - 2014.01.27 00:17:00 - [146] - Quote Teilka Darkmist wrote: Rusty Shallows wrote: Teilka Darkmist wrote: Rusty Shallows wrote: Teilka Darkmist wrote: As to the three seashells go right ahead and explain. And the female variant please. It's useless for me to know about the male one. Calling my bluff, well played. Okay you win. Is that canon or just something she made up? Also, well played yourself, I didn't know that was out there. Demolition Man (1993). Sorry I keep forgetting each year that passes the movie become more of a cult classic. I've seen Demolition Man. I was wondering if the explanation was canon. Sandra Bullock seems to have implied it without the dirty details, all bets off if the interview was a lie. That might be the closest "official" answer we'll get unless someone releases a biography. So much for my youthful hopes the shells had some high-end sci-fi element. Here, have some candy and a Like. :-) Forums > Game
Teilka Darkmist 105	Posted - 2014.01.27 00:29:00 - [147] - Quote Rusty Shallows wrote: Teilka Darkmist wrote: Rusty Shallows wrote: Demolition Man (1993). Sorry I keep forgetting each year that passes the movie become more of a cult classic. I've seen Demolition Man. I was wondering if the explanation was canon. Sandra Bullock seems to have implied it without the dirty details, all bets off if the interview was a lie. That might be the closest "official" answer we'll get unless someone releases a biography. So much for my youthful hopes the shells had some high-end sci-fi element. Well, they were in the toilet and in the fairly near future, so I'm not sure how founded those hopes could have been in the first place really. When I play as a sniper, I'm more likely to be nearer to the opponents redline than my own.
Aizen Intiki OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 771	Posted - 2014.01.27 00:39:00 - [148] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: AP Grasshopper wrote: OverIord Ulath wrote: Then shouldn't they require the same number of people to run their tanks? I mean... If you are taking 3 people's attention away from focusing on winning the match just to deal with you, shouldn't you require the same number of people to distract them? Eve pilots can fly Titans entirely by themselves. Incase you didn't know, its a video game. A titan is not to subcaps as a tank is to infantry. For one, titans cost literally a thousand times as much as a subcap. When your tank costs 1000x more than an infantry suit, then we can compare them to titans. Oh, also - titans are laughably ineffective against subcaps. Tanks are very effective at killing infantry. This is a bad comparison and you should feel bad. More like BS vs. Cruiser/destroyer/slow frigate. and we all know who that will end. Well, everyone who plays EVE anyways. Also, technically, we don't fly Titans all by oursleves. They do have a crew. But the Titan crew piloted by a Cap is far smaller than a non cap crew. "Hello, world!" lol, sounds like something a whore lover would say Alt of the great Godin I like chocolate ^___^
Aizen Intiki OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 771	Posted - 2014.01.27 00:40:00 - [149] - Quote Sam Booty wrote: Make tanks base cost 1 million ISK, dropships 2 million ISK. Decrease efficiency of all armor/shield hardeners. Improve swarm launcher at close range (if you are close to target they should do like 50% more damage) and improve AV grenades they are so useless now. You could also develop new AV swarm launcher weapon which locks on to vehicles and allows delayed explosion. If you leave the game as it is you will just continue to lose players. So a return to 1.6. Obvious scrub is obvious. "Hello, world!" lol, sounds like something a whore lover would say Alt of the great Godin I like chocolate ^___^
Aizen Intiki OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 771	Posted - 2014.01.27 00:41:00 - [150] - Quote jordy mack wrote: Atiim wrote: Aizen Intiki wrote: Yes, I'm sure. Can I have DEV confirmation? :P No seriously, how do u know u jack in? Isn't that the reason we can never be pilots AND mercs. Also where do u plug the... yer nevermind.. We can't plug into a ship because it's a different implant. We use a different kind of pod. "Hello, world!" lol, sounds like something a whore lover would say Alt of the great Godin I like chocolate ^___^

Aizen Intiki OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 771	Posted - 2014.01.27 00:44:00 - [151] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: Cooper Eudaemon wrote: What if you had to run a Pilot dropsuit to drive/fly a vehicle? Do you guys think that would balance things? You'd have to skill into the suit--to use advanced or prototype weapons or modules, you'd have to have an advanced or prototype suit. And it'd be a light suit, so you'd be paper thin outside of your vehicle. There could even be modules and equipment specific to the pilot suit, to provide a further ISK/SP sink. Provided their is a mlt variant, I see no prolem with HAV's or HAAV's , MAV's or MAAV'S requiring a pilot suit to run. Light vehicle shouldn't need them otherwise you are unfairly stopping the use of personal transport. It's a tech 2 suit, so no, there wouldn't be a MLT version. "Hello, world!" lol, sounds like something a whore lover would say Alt of the great Godin I like chocolate ^___^
Aizen Intiki OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 771	Posted - 2014.01.27 00:45:00 - [152] - Quote Teilka Darkmist wrote: Korvin Lomont wrote: Henchmen21 wrote: Yet it only takes 1 person to fly/fire a titan. The inability to control two aspects of something 1000x smaller makes no sense. All that has to happen is either slow tanks down, or make prox mines stop giving warnings. I alone can do enough damage to make a tank run away. If running away wasn't an easy out I'd be able to finish it off. Also I'd reduce blaster range so they had to fear AV nades. To my my knowlegde EVE ships have large crews of mortal humans on board, but capsuleers simply don't care for them... I've seen it both ways about crews on capsuleer controlled ships. It seems some have crews and some don't. It, unfortunatly, doesn't seem to have any effect on how the ship actually flies. Personally I think it would be great if you could chose to have a human crew on your ship which includes a slight recurring cost (We're talking tens or hundreds of isk depending on the size) whilst you're actually undocked but which improves your stats a small amount. This would take into account how automated systems can only react to problems as they happen or after they happen. With a human you have an ability to predict where problems are going to happen based on information an automated system can't detect and interpret as it would be highly situational. How this feeds into tanks is, I think a tank should be useable as a one-man, automated system, but it should be most effective when it has a crew onboard, communicating with each other. Dropships should be better when they have a pilot and a co-pilot/gunner than they are with just a pilot. It should apply even more in Dust than in EVE as you have less time to react to events as they happen. In space you usually have kilometres between you and your opponent. On the ground you have metres. Bro, the crewed ships preform far worse than the Capusleer ships with a small crew or no crew. "Hello, world!" lol, sounds like something a whore lover would say Alt of the great Godin I like chocolate ^___^
Teilka Darkmist 106	Posted - 2014.01.27 00:51:00 - [153] - Quote Aizen Intiki wrote: Teilka Darkmist wrote: Korvin Lomont wrote: Henchmen21 wrote: Yet it only takes 1 person to fly/fire a titan. The inability to control two aspects of something 1000x smaller makes no sense. All that has to happen is either slow tanks down, or make prox mines stop giving warnings. I alone can do enough damage to make a tank run away. If running away wasn't an easy out I'd be able to finish it off. Also I'd reduce blaster range so they had to fear AV nades. To my my knowlegde EVE ships have large crews of mortal humans on board, but capsuleers simply don't care for them... I've seen it both ways about crews on capsuleer controlled ships. It seems some have crews and some don't. It, unfortunatly, doesn't seem to have any effect on how the ship actually flies. Personally I think it would be great if you could chose to have a human crew on your ship which includes a slight recurring cost (We're talking tens or hundreds of isk depending on the size) whilst you're actually undocked but which improves your stats a small amount. This would take into account how automated systems can only react to problems as they happen or after they happen. With a human you have an ability to predict where problems are going to happen based on information an automated system can't detect and interpret as it would be highly situational. How this feeds into tanks is, I think a tank should be useable as a one-man, automated system, but it should be most effective when it has a crew onboard, communicating with each other. Dropships should be better when they have a pilot and a co-pilot/gunner than they are with just a pilot. It should apply even more in Dust than in EVE as you have less time to react to events as they happen. In space you usually have kilometres between you and your opponent. On the ground you have metres. Bro, the crewed ships preform far worse than the Capusleer ships with a small crew or no crew. Yes, non-capsuleer ships do perform worse. What I'm saying is that Capsuleer ships with a crew should, in my opinion, be at least slightly better than Capsuleer ships with no crew. When I play as a sniper, I'm more likely to be nearer to the opponents redline than my own.
Monkey MAC Lost Millennium 1674	Posted - 2014.01.27 00:57:00 - [154] - Quote Aizen Intiki wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Cooper Eudaemon wrote: What if you had to run a Pilot dropsuit to drive/fly a vehicle? Do you guys think that would balance things? You'd have to skill into the suit--to use advanced or prototype weapons or modules, you'd have to have an advanced or prototype suit. And it'd be a light suit, so you'd be paper thin outside of your vehicle. There could even be modules and equipment specific to the pilot suit, to provide a further ISK/SP sink. Provided their is a mlt variant, I see no prolem with HAV's or HAAV's , MAV's or MAAV'S requiring a pilot suit to run. Light vehicle shouldn't need them otherwise you are unfairly stopping the use of personal transport. It's a tech 2 suit, so no, there wouldn't be a MLT version. All our current suits are T2, or are you referring to specalization in skill tree. Either then no, if their is not a mlt variant of a suit then it shouldn't be necessary to pilot a vehicle. Tanks 514 I told you, I bloody well told you. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
Our Deepest Regret L.O.T.I.S. D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 494	Posted - 2014.01.27 01:02:00 - [155] - Quote I'd love a two-man or even a three man tank. I enjoy the mechanics of team play and working as a group. It's not the game we've been given, though.
Aizen Intiki OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 771	Posted - 2014.01.27 01:07:00 - [156] - Quote Teilka Darkmist wrote: Aizen Intiki wrote: Teilka Darkmist wrote: Korvin Lomont wrote: Henchmen21 wrote: Yet it only takes 1 person to fly/fire a titan. The inability to control two aspects of something 1000x smaller makes no sense. All that has to happen is either slow tanks down, or make prox mines stop giving warnings. I alone can do enough damage to make a tank run away. If running away wasn't an easy out I'd be able to finish it off. Also I'd reduce blaster range so they had to fear AV nades. To my my knowlegde EVE ships have large crews of mortal humans on board, but capsuleers simply don't care for them... I've seen it both ways about crews on capsuleer controlled ships. It seems some have crews and some don't. It, unfortunatly, doesn't seem to have any effect on how the ship actually flies. Personally I think it would be great if you could chose to have a human crew on your ship which includes a slight recurring cost (We're talking tens or hundreds of isk depending on the size) whilst you're actually undocked but which improves your stats a small amount. This would take into account how automated systems can only react to problems as they happen or after they happen. With a human you have an ability to predict where problems are going to happen based on information an automated system can't detect and interpret as it would be highly situational. How this feeds into tanks is, I think a tank should be useable as a one-man, automated system, but it should be most effective when it has a crew onboard, communicating with each other. Dropships should be better when they have a pilot and a co-pilot/gunner than they are with just a pilot. It should apply even more in Dust than in EVE as you have less time to react to events as they happen. In space you usually have kilometres between you and your opponent. On the ground you have metres. Bro, the crewed ships preform far worse than the Capusleer ships with a small crew or no crew. Yes, non-capsuleer ships do perform worse. What I'm saying is that Capsuleer ships with a crew should, in my opinion, be at least slightly better than Capsuleer ships with no crew. Some Cap ships still require crews to fully operate, and each time we dock, we get a new crew. If our ship dies, the crew escapes, or is killed in the blast. "Hello, world!" lol, sounds like something a whore lover would say Alt of the great Godin I like chocolate ^___^
Aizen Intiki OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 771	Posted - 2014.01.27 01:08:00 - [157] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: Aizen Intiki wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Cooper Eudaemon wrote: What if you had to run a Pilot dropsuit to drive/fly a vehicle? Do you guys think that would balance things? You'd have to skill into the suit--to use advanced or prototype weapons or modules, you'd have to have an advanced or prototype suit. And it'd be a light suit, so you'd be paper thin outside of your vehicle. There could even be modules and equipment specific to the pilot suit, to provide a further ISK/SP sink. Provided their is a mlt variant, I see no prolem with HAV's or HAAV's , MAV's or MAAV'S requiring a pilot suit to run. Light vehicle shouldn't need them otherwise you are unfairly stopping the use of personal transport. It's a tech 2 suit, so no, there wouldn't be a MLT version. All our current suits are T2, or are you referring to specalization in skill tree. Either then no, if their is not a mlt variant of a suit then it shouldn't be necessary to pilot a vehicle. No they are not. Light, Medium, Heavy frames, and every vehicle but the ADS is tech 1. "Hello, world!" lol, sounds like something a whore lover would say Alt of the great Godin I like chocolate ^___^
Monkey MAC Lost Millennium 1676	Posted - 2014.01.27 01:15:00 - [158] - Quote Aizen Intiki wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Aizen Intiki wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Cooper Eudaemon wrote: What if you had to run a Pilot dropsuit to drive/fly a vehicle? Do you guys think that would balance things? You'd have to skill into the suit--to use advanced or prototype weapons or modules, you'd have to have an advanced or prototype suit. And it'd be a light suit, so you'd be paper thin outside of your vehicle. There could even be modules and equipment specific to the pilot suit, to provide a further ISK/SP sink. Provided their is a mlt variant, I see no prolem with HAV's or HAAV's , MAV's or MAAV'S requiring a pilot suit to run. Light vehicle shouldn't need them otherwise you are unfairly stopping the use of personal transport. It's a tech 2 suit, so no, there wouldn't be a MLT version. All our current suits are T2, or are you referring to specalization in skill tree. Either then no, if their is not a mlt variant of a suit then it shouldn't be necessary to pilot a vehicle. No they are not. Light, Medium, Heavy frames, and every vehicle but the ADS is tech 1. EDIT: IT shouldn't be. It should simply make it better, depending on how you fit it. Also, once it comes out, vehicles should be nerfed. MLT vehicles needs to be nerfed now. No you are kistaken all suits are Tier 2, their used to be a previous iteration of suits that diddn't havethe same player model. Its the same with weapons there used to be a T1 Assault Rifle with an underslung grenade launcher, check the old footage. T3 weapons are rumoured to have hundreds off attachments and configurations. You are definitely thinking of pilot suits being up a skill tree level (called a specilization) Tanks 514 I told you, I bloody well told you. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
Aizen Intiki OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 772	Posted - 2014.01.27 02:43:00 - [159] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: No you are kistaken all suits are Tier 2, their used to be a previous iteration of suits that diddn't havethe same player model. Its the same with weapons there used to be a T1 Assault Rifle with an underslung grenade launcher, check the old footage. T3 weapons are rumoured to have hundreds off attachments and configurations. You are definitely thinking of pilot suits being up a skill tree level (called a specilization) 1: It's tech, not tier 2: That's not how techs work 3: I know about weapon rigging, and known about it way before you. "Hello, world!" lol, sounds like something a whore lover would say Alt of the great Godin I like chocolate ^___^
Toby Flenderson research lab 216	Posted - 2014.01.27 04:28:00 - [160] - Quote The Attorney General wrote: Atiim wrote: The Attorney General wrote: Tanks can be taken down by a single AV person. This thread is just silly. LAVs can also be taken out by HMGs, Mass Drivers, Flaylock Pistols and Combat Rifles. Confirmed: Anti Infantry weapons are far too versatile. How is a weapon with literally one function (SL/AV nades) versatile? If you referring to FG/PLC then I suggest you consider how rare they are seen as infantry fighting weapons. PLC hardly ever appears in matches at all and FGs rarely come out unless tanks are running around. Also, if you choose to ignore this first paragraph, I challenge you to find something besides the MCC tanks can't kill. There is no weapon more versatile than anything on a tank.

Toby Flenderson research lab 216	Posted - 2014.01.27 04:41:00 - [161] - Quote Atiim wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: In my tank i have 2 drones working blow decks for the reloading of turrets and activating modules, other than that its me doing all the work You cant prove otherwise With no DEV confirmation you can't even prove yourself correct. Even if, these alleged drones are automated and their functions are still managed by 1 player, so that argument is both incorrect and irrelevant. Haha try this... No. There are no drones and things are not as you claim. You cannot prove otherwise, thus you are wrong by your own logic. Give it up, Atiim, you can't argue with someone who thinks that a magical teapot in the asteroid belt is worth believing in just because it cannot be proven to not exist.
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2301	Posted - 2014.01.27 11:31:00 - [162] - Quote Toby Flenderson wrote: Atiim wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: In my tank i have 2 drones working blow decks for the reloading of turrets and activating modules, other than that its me doing all the work You cant prove otherwise With no DEV confirmation you can't even prove yourself correct. Even if, these alleged drones are automated and their functions are still managed by 1 player, so that argument is both incorrect and irrelevant. Haha try this... No. There are no drones and things are not as you claim. You cannot prove otherwise, thus you are wrong by your own logic. Give it up, Atiim, you can't argue with someone who thinks that a magical teapot in the asteroid belt is worth believing in just because it cannot be proven to not exist. Lore You cant prove otherwise But this is the future where a pod pilot in EVE can use his ship with a skeleton crew, without the pod pilot it would take a full crew In DUST with his pilot suit it only takes 1, the other 2 gunners offer nothing to the working of the tank, they dont increase its HP or its resistance or its speed etc Intelligence is OP
OverIord Ulath Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 101	Posted - 2014.01.27 19:23:00 - [163] - Quote Self perpetuating thread... wow... I pretty much leave it alone for 3 days and I go from 0 likes to 101 and the thread fills itself... Damn..... I'm a forum NINJA!
calisk galern BurgezzE.T.F Public Disorder. 1679	Posted - 2014.01.27 19:26:00 - [164] - Quote nah it would be even if it took two tanks to kill one guy heh. that's equality. make their guns so ****** it takes 6 direct rail gun shots to kill a heavy. make it so they need to reload their blaster before it deals enough damage to kill a militia suit. that's about on par with proto swarm launchers.
CLONE117 planetary retaliation organisation ACME Holding Conglomerate 602	Posted - 2014.01.27 19:31:00 - [165] - Quote it doesnt take half a squad to kill a mlt tank. it takes half a squad filled with idiots to kill a mlt tank. i can solo most mlt tanks with adv swarms and std av nades pretty easily. and i havnt even put much of any sp into it.
Leevur Tronhadar Free Guard Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2014.01.27 19:34:00 - [166] - Quote Would be awesome if you could hijack tanks while someone is driving them
Toby Flenderson research lab 218	Posted - 2014.01.28 02:25:00 - [167] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Toby Flenderson wrote: Atiim wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: In my tank i have 2 drones working blow decks for the reloading of turrets and activating modules, other than that its me doing all the work You cant prove otherwise With no DEV confirmation you can't even prove yourself correct. Even if, these alleged drones are automated and their functions are still managed by 1 player, so that argument is both incorrect and irrelevant. Haha try this... No. There are no drones and things are not as you claim. You cannot prove otherwise, thus you are wrong by your own logic. Give it up, Atiim, you can't argue with someone who thinks that a magical teapot in the asteroid belt is worth believing in just because it cannot be proven to not exist. Lore You cant prove otherwise But this is the future where a pod pilot in EVE can use his ship with a skeleton crew, without the pod pilot it would take a full crew In DUST with his pilot suit it only takes 1, the other 2 gunners offer nothing to the working of the tank, they dont increase its HP or its resistance or its speed etc Lore is the reason why some people believe in fairies and leprechauns. I feel you have completely missed my point of calling you out on using an argument from ignorance. The burden of proof is not on me as I am not the one claiming something is true. You, on the other hand, have claimed to know something as fact but can do nothing more than hope no one can prove you wrong. You're not moving forward in one direction in this way, you are only saying that you can't be pushed backwards.
OverIord Ulath Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 107	Posted - 2014.01.28 02:29:00 - [168] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Toby Flenderson wrote: Atiim wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: In my tank i have 2 drones working blow decks for the reloading of turrets and activating modules, other than that its me doing all the work You cant prove otherwise With no DEV confirmation you can't even prove yourself correct. Even if, these alleged drones are automated and their functions are still managed by 1 player, so that argument is both incorrect and irrelevant. Haha try this... No. There are no drones and things are not as you claim. You cannot prove otherwise, thus you are wrong by your own logic. Give it up, Atiim, you can't argue with someone who thinks that a magical teapot in the asteroid belt is worth believing in just because it cannot be proven to not exist. Lore You cant prove otherwise But this is the future where a pod pilot in EVE can use his ship with a skeleton crew, without the pod pilot it would take a full crew In DUST with his pilot suit it only takes 1, the other 2 gunners offer nothing to the working of the tank, they dont increase its HP or its resistance or its speed etc checks skill tree and market place Nope, no pilot suit. Take your babbling elsewhere please.
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2304	Posted - 2014.01.28 14:01:00 - [169] - Quote OverIord Ulath wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Toby Flenderson wrote: Atiim wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: In my tank i have 2 drones working blow decks for the reloading of turrets and activating modules, other than that its me doing all the work You cant prove otherwise With no DEV confirmation you can't even prove yourself correct. Even if, these alleged drones are automated and their functions are still managed by 1 player, so that argument is both incorrect and irrelevant. Haha try this... No. There are no drones and things are not as you claim. You cannot prove otherwise, thus you are wrong by your own logic. Give it up, Atiim, you can't argue with someone who thinks that a magical teapot in the asteroid belt is worth believing in just because it cannot be proven to not exist. Lore You cant prove otherwise But this is the future where a pod pilot in EVE can use his ship with a skeleton crew, without the pod pilot it would take a full crew In DUST with his pilot suit it only takes 1, the other 2 gunners offer nothing to the working of the tank, they dont increase its HP or its resistance or its speed etc checks skill tree and market place Nope, no pilot suit. Take your babbling elsewhere please. checks market place Pilot suit tab is under light frame in the dropsuit section Only a matter of time Intelligence is OP
Bethhy Ancient Exiles. Renegade Alliance 996	Posted - 2014.01.28 14:14:00 - [170] - Quote CLONE117 wrote: it doesnt take half a squad to kill a mlt tank. it takes half a squad filled with idiots to kill a mlt tank. i can solo most mlt tanks with adv swarms and std av nades pretty easily. and i havnt even put much of any sp into it. I have 0 skills in vehicles and rarely die with a MLT tank.

Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 1361	Posted - 2014.01.28 14:44:00 - [171] - Quote Henchmen21 wrote: Yet it only takes 1 person to fly/fire a titan. The inability to control two aspects of something 1000x smaller makes no sense. All that has to happen is either slow tanks down, or make prox mines stop giving warnings. I alone can do enough damage to make a tank run away. If running away wasn't an easy out I'd be able to finish it off. Also I'd reduce blaster range so they had to fear AV nades. Both of those need to happen along with 1 seat per gun + 1 seat for the driver. IMHO, zooming around the ground of the battlefield should be the sole domain of the LAV (and perhaps the MAV when we get them). HAVs should take forever to get somewhere, but once they do you're in for a world of hurt if you're in their range. Another thing, concerning the turret ranges. Ranges of Turrets should mirror the ranges of similar weapons of that tier. MLT Railguns should have the same basic range as a MLT Forge Gun (which IMHO should be called a Forge Shotgun since that is about all of the range they get). MLT Blasters should have roughly the same range as MLT HMG. Even then, range should increase by size (or rather decrease by reduction of size). If the MLT 80GJ Rail has the same range as a MLT Forge Shotgun, then the Small Turret versions should have 1/4 the range of the 80GJ since it is a 20GJ gun. Though this would also mean that the PRO 80GJ Rails would have the same range as PRO Forge Guns (which is stupid long range AFAIK), as well, PRO 80GJ Blasters would melt anything within 30m or so (not entirely sure on optimal of the HMG since I am only a tourist with it). Praise St. Arzad and Pass the Nanohives Karin Midular, gone, never forgotten Executing Amarr Trash since Closed Beta
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2304	Posted - 2014.01.28 15:07:00 - [172] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: Henchmen21 wrote: Yet it only takes 1 person to fly/fire a titan. The inability to control two aspects of something 1000x smaller makes no sense. All that has to happen is either slow tanks down, or make prox mines stop giving warnings. I alone can do enough damage to make a tank run away. If running away wasn't an easy out I'd be able to finish it off. Also I'd reduce blaster range so they had to fear AV nades. Both of those need to happen along with 1 seat per gun + 1 seat for the driver. IMHO, zooming around the ground of the battlefield should be the sole domain of the LAV (and perhaps the MAV when we get them). HAVs should take forever to get somewhere, but once they do you're in for a world of hurt if you're in their range. Another thing, concerning the turret ranges. Ranges of Turrets should mirror the ranges of similar weapons of that tier. MLT Railguns should have the same basic range as a MLT Forge Gun (which IMHO should be called a Forge Shotgun since that is about all of the range they get). MLT Blasters should have roughly the same range as MLT HMG. Even then, range should increase by size (or rather decrease by reduction of size). If the MLT 80GJ Rail has the same range as a MLT Forge Shotgun, then the Small Turret versions should have 1/4 the range of the 80GJ since it is a 20GJ gun. Though this would also mean that the PRO 80GJ Rails would have the same range as PRO Forge Guns (which is stupid long range AFAIK), as well, PRO 80GJ Blasters would melt anything within 30m or so (not entirely sure on optimal of the HMG since I am only a tourist with it). Yea no not happening Next to impossible to do anyways since who skills up what and who buys what and can they fit it even if the person who has it can fit it, its impossible and tbh a stupid idea, even BF4 doesnt use this method Also lol a 80GJ Large railgun turret which needs a tank to use it and over 1000PG will fire a shell further than a handheld FG Intelligence is OP
OverIord Ulath Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 113	Posted - 2014.01.28 21:27:00 - [173] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: In my tank i have 2 drones working blow decks for the reloading of turrets and activating modules, other than that its me doing all the work You cant prove otherwise Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Lore You cant prove otherwise But this is the future where a pod pilot in EVE can use his ship with a skeleton crew, without the pod pilot it would take a full crew In DUST with his pilot suit it only takes 1, the other 2 gunners offer nothing to the working of the tank, they dont increase its HP or its resistance or its speed etc Takahiro Kashuken wrote: checks market place Pilot suit tab is under light frame in the dropsuit section Only a matter of time Not in game = Provably undo-able. Provably undo-able = Provably false. Provably false = I CAN prove otherwise.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 1703	Posted - 2014.01.29 11:51:00 - [174] - Quote OverIord Ulath wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Toby Flenderson wrote: Atiim wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: In my tank i have 2 drones working blow decks for the reloading of turrets and activating modules, other than that its me doing all the work You cant prove otherwise With no DEV confirmation you can't even prove yourself correct. Even if, these alleged drones are automated and their functions are still managed by 1 player, so that argument is both incorrect and irrelevant. Haha try this... No. There are no drones and things are not as you claim. You cannot prove otherwise, thus you are wrong by your own logic. Give it up, Atiim, you can't argue with someone who thinks that a magical teapot in the asteroid belt is worth believing in just because it cannot be proven to not exist. Lore You cant prove otherwise But this is the future where a pod pilot in EVE can use his ship with a skeleton crew, without the pod pilot it would take a full crew In DUST with his pilot suit it only takes 1, the other 2 gunners offer nothing to the working of the tank, they dont increase its HP or its resistance or its speed etc checks skill tree and market place Nope, no pilot suit. Take your babbling elsewhere please. You have an incoherent, illogical hatred of tanks. Tell me, where did the tank touch 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
Operative 1171 Aajli Bragian Order Amarr Empire 1107	Posted - 2014.01.29 15:54:00 - [175] - Quote OverIord Ulath wrote: Operative 1171 Aajli wrote: Hmm, in EVE a battleship gets about five or so big guns vs. a little frigate with maybe three little bitty guns. No, it's working as intended. DUST and EVE are the same in that CCP designs them and they base their designs on a certain mentality that is consistent between the two games. One person, one character (one vehicle). Just because you want to team up with other infantry doesn't mean I have to suffer dealing with coordinating with other people. You could run solo and it'd be the same GÇô one person, one character. I know this has been said before billions of times, but it bears repeating I suppose. EVE =/= DUST You cannot balance a FPS game based on a space ship game. You cannot balance a 16v16 game on a fleet v fleet game. You cannot balance a console lobby shooter where you actively have to earn SP off of a PC MMO space opera where you can let the game sit for months and not miss a beat on your SP accumulation. You cannot balance a game that is based on using cover, strafing, aiming and "gungame" on a game that is based on whatever the hell you use to kill people with in a space MMO. Therefore, you cannot base tank v infantry balance on titan v frigate balance. You can compare what I am comparing which is that CCP doesn't do team control. If that were going to happen they'd also give EVE ships the ability to run a coordinated crew. No, CCP does not do teamed vehicles. Running guns on a DS or LAV is gravy. Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I read your book!
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 1375	Posted - 2014.01.29 16:08:00 - [176] - Quote Teilka Darkmist wrote: R F Gyro wrote: All the comparisons with Eve are essentially irrelevant from a gameplay perspective for one very simple reason. Eve doesn't have a cap of 16 players per side. Eve also doesn't have such small grids (relative to the size of the individual) or the need for each side to be balanced out before a fight starts. It also doesn't have people complaining about how someone in a battleship can alpha their frigate or the ability to return to the battle within a couple of second, you have to clone (assuming you're podded) get in a new ship, undock then fly to the engagement zone. And that's the shortest version of it. Wouldn't the shortest version of it be the same as what you said until "fly to the engagement zone". If you did all of the previous things from a Titan and then got bridged to the engagement zone, that would be the shortest version of it. Praise St. Arzad and Pass the Nanohives Karin Midular, gone, never forgotten Executing Amarr Trash since Closed Beta
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 1375	Posted - 2014.01.29 16:33:00 - [177] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: Henchmen21 wrote: Yet it only takes 1 person to fly/fire a titan. The inability to control two aspects of something 1000x smaller makes no sense. All that has to happen is either slow tanks down, or make prox mines stop giving warnings. I alone can do enough damage to make a tank run away. If running away wasn't an easy out I'd be able to finish it off. Also I'd reduce blaster range so they had to fear AV nades. Both of those need to happen along with 1 seat per gun + 1 seat for the driver. IMHO, zooming around the ground of the battlefield should be the sole domain of the LAV (and perhaps the MAV when we get them). HAVs should take forever to get somewhere, but once they do you're in for a world of hurt if you're in their range. Another thing, concerning the turret ranges. Ranges of Turrets should mirror the ranges of similar weapons of that tier. MLT Railguns should have the same basic range as a MLT Forge Gun (which IMHO should be called a Forge Shotgun since that is about all of the range they get). MLT Blasters should have roughly the same range as MLT HMG. Even then, range should increase by size (or rather decrease by reduction of size). If the MLT 80GJ Rail has the same range as a MLT Forge Shotgun, then the Small Turret versions should have 1/4 the range of the 80GJ since it is a 20GJ gun. Though this would also mean that the PRO 80GJ Rails would have the same range as PRO Forge Guns (which is stupid long range AFAIK), as well, PRO 80GJ Blasters would melt anything within 30m or so (not entirely sure on optimal of the HMG since I am only a tourist with it). Yea no not happening Next to impossible to do anyways since who skills up what and who buys what and can they fit it even if the person who has it can fit it, its impossible and tbh a stupid idea, even BF4 doesnt use this method Also lol a 80GJ Large railgun turret which needs a tank to use it and over 1000PG will fire a shell further than a handheld FG English, it is not impossible, it is called coordination. One guy skills up appropriately to be able to sit in the drivers seat of the tank and the other guy skills up appropriately to sit in the gunners seat. Who buys what and fits the tank has nothing to do splitting driver and gunner. If CCP just made it so that you actually needed to have the skills to use something to use it, then it would be as simple as: If I have skills for a HAV though no skills for any turrets, I can still buy turrets and fit them, I just won't be able to use them. They will be there to be occupied by corp/squadmates who are appropriately skilled. I will never be able to cycle to the turret seats unless I skill for them. Conversely, if I have skills for Small Rail Turrets but I don't have skills for a HAV, if I hop into your HAV, even if it is empty, I will never be able to cycle to the drivers seat. If you don't have Small Rail Turrets and I am not skilled to use the turrets you do have fitted then I will just not be able to enter your HAV no matter how many times I spam circle. Tie the seats that are open to you to the skills you have. This would cut down on vehicle theft for one and for two it would also cut down on vehicle spam. In response to your comment about the 80GJ Rail, what percentage of the HAVs PG does that 80GJ Rail take up? Is it proportional to the percentage of PG the Heavy needs to dedicate to his Forge Gun? It called balance, which should be more important than realism (as though 80GJ Rails and modified handheld mining lasers have any realism to begin with). Praise St. Arzad and Pass the Nanohives Karin Midular, gone, never forgotten Executing Amarr Trash since Closed Beta
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2325	Posted - 2014.01.29 16:39:00 - [178] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: Henchmen21 wrote: Yet it only takes 1 person to fly/fire a titan. The inability to control two aspects of something 1000x smaller makes no sense. All that has to happen is either slow tanks down, or make prox mines stop giving warnings. I alone can do enough damage to make a tank run away. If running away wasn't an easy out I'd be able to finish it off. Also I'd reduce blaster range so they had to fear AV nades. Both of those need to happen along with 1 seat per gun + 1 seat for the driver. IMHO, zooming around the ground of the battlefield should be the sole domain of the LAV (and perhaps the MAV when we get them). HAVs should take forever to get somewhere, but once they do you're in for a world of hurt if you're in their range. Another thing, concerning the turret ranges. Ranges of Turrets should mirror the ranges of similar weapons of that tier. MLT Railguns should have the same basic range as a MLT Forge Gun (which IMHO should be called a Forge Shotgun since that is about all of the range they get). MLT Blasters should have roughly the same range as MLT HMG. Even then, range should increase by size (or rather decrease by reduction of size). If the MLT 80GJ Rail has the same range as a MLT Forge Shotgun, then the Small Turret versions should have 1/4 the range of the 80GJ since it is a 20GJ gun. Though this would also mean that the PRO 80GJ Rails would have the same range as PRO Forge Guns (which is stupid long range AFAIK), as well, PRO 80GJ Blasters would melt anything within 30m or so (not entirely sure on optimal of the HMG since I am only a tourist with it). Yea no not happening Next to impossible to do anyways since who skills up what and who buys what and can they fit it even if the person who has it can fit it, its impossible and tbh a stupid idea, even BF4 doesnt use this method Also lol a 80GJ Large railgun turret which needs a tank to use it and over 1000PG will fire a shell further than a handheld FG English, it is not impossible, it is called coordination. One guy skills up appropriately to be able to sit in the drivers seat of the tank and the other guy skills up appropriately to sit in the gunners seat. Who buys what and fits the tank has nothing to do splitting driver and gunner. If CCP just made it so that you actually needed to have the skills to use something to use it, then it would be as simple as: If I have skills for a HAV though no skills for any turrets, I can still buy turrets and fit them, I just won't be able to use them. They will be there to be occupied by corp/squadmates who are appropriately skilled. I will never be able to cycle to the turret seats unless I skill for them. Conversely, if I have skills for Small Rail Turrets but I don't have skills for a HAV, if I hop into your HAV, even if it is empty, I will never be able to cycle to the drivers seat. If you don't have Small Rail Turrets and I am not skilled to use the turrets you do have fitted then I will just not be able to enter your HAV no matter how many times I spam circle. Tie the seats that are open to you to the skills you have. This would cut down on vehicle theft for one and for two it would also cut down on vehicle spam. In response to your comment about the 80GJ Rail, what percentage of the HAVs PG does that 80GJ Rail take up? Is it proportional to the percentage of PG the Heavy needs to dedicate to his Forge Gun? It called balance, which should be more important than realism (as though 80GJ Rails and modified handheld mining lasers have any realism to begin with). But it does, skilling up and fitting things are a pain I can skill up a proto turret, it costs me ISK/SP to do it Now i could bring out a tank, complex mods and whatnot now if the guy driving or gunning cant use what ive got on the tank then its useless I fit my tank up for the situation and to the best i can, now if the 2nd isnt as skilled up as me it could make the tank weaker let alone if he could use the mods or not Its too much, it would mean both guys have to skill up basically everything just so 1 can drive and 1 can gun and frankly its not needed and makes it far too complicated and plus chances are i would have to dumb down the tank so that the guy could get in 1st Intelligence is OP
maeth-01 2501 DUST University Ivy League 40	Posted - 2014.01.29 16:43:00 - [179] - Quote Squagga wrote: I firmly believe that the most important and fairest way to solve this problem is to keep everything the way it is, but to make it more difficult to obtain these tanks. They should cost more, both in SP and in ISK. Maybe even the militia ones can be cheap. So that new people can get into them. But they arent nearly as strong. I was talking with some buddies last night they suggested that there should be a limit on how many vehiceles YOU can call in. If you lose a tank then you gotta wait for about four or five mins before you can call in another one. Which would cause you to have to be skilled in both infantry and vehicles. I do agree that just one person shouldn't be able to take out a tank. But then again it shouldn't be so easy for just one person to get a tank I thought they already had a vehicle quoter..... always happens at the start when everyone calls there transport in..... *Laugh, and the world laughs with you;Weep, and you weep alone*
Sextus Hardcock 0uter.Heaven Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive 241	Posted - 2014.01.29 16:50:00 - [180] - Quote It's a silly idea to force a tank driver to need a gunner for his main gun. However, it's also silly that a tank is both effective vs all infantry and tanks, whereas only specialized infantry can fight off tanks. The simple solution is to work on the tanks primary weapons to make them less effective vs random infantry, while making the small turrets more effective. Tankers can still tank, can fight other vehicles and occasionally kill dumb infantry in the open. If they have second or third gunner they can mow down infantry at shorter ranges. three AV can destroy a tank, A tank with a crew of three can destroy a three man squad. Any tank can battle any other tank even without extra crewman. If this is done (and can work) then you can go about buffing/nerfing adv/proto tanks since they will mainly compete with themselves. The state of affairs is now the big question: Why not tank? The only real answer is : I like climbing stairs and going thru small door ways. Tanks excel at killing everything. That is not balanced. That is not to say that a solo swarmer should be able to pop a tank. Tanks should be nearly indestructible, they just need to lose the ability to easily kill everything. I am the sixth son Chrome Vet

Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 1376	Posted - 2014.01.29 17:05:00 - [181] - Quote Ok, so English are you trying to tell me that you and Spkr don't play together enough for you two to coordinate and design fits that would compliment each skill set? Beyond that, are you saying that you run mostly solo and bring out HAVs only while running solo? You never squad up with anyone regularly who you trust enough to be a competent driver/gunner, whether they be from your corp or even just old friends? Coordination and Teamwork are the name of the game, work together with people you regularly play with to train complimentary skill sets and squad together to OMGWTFPWN everything that stands in your way (since we all realize that 1 dedicated driver and 1 dedicated gunner > 1 guy splitting his attention between driving and gunning). It is the most intelligent way to handle HAVs and you know it. It will create the balance where they can have a somewhat softer tank and be killed with AV coordination. Vehicles are stupid OP at the moment and if you can't admit that, I just don't know what to say to that. HAVs should require teamwork to become true threats on the battlefield. They don't currently, any jackass can hop into an HAV by themselves and run around owning infantry since CCP has buffed vehicles and nerfed AV as they have. I want HAVs to be able to become that true threat on the battlefield, though only for those who are willing and able to coordinate and work as a team. If all you want is to kick puppies (which is what HAV v Infantry currently is) by yourself, you should biomass, uninstall and go gank unsuspecting haulers and miners in Eve. Praise St. Arzad and Pass the Nanohives Karin Midular, gone, never forgotten Executing Amarr Trash since Closed Beta
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2328	Posted - 2014.01.29 17:59:00 - [182] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: Ok, so English are you trying to tell me that you and Spkr don't play together enough for you two to coordinate and design fits that would compliment each skill set? Beyond that, are you saying that you run mostly solo and bring out HAVs only while running solo? You never squad up with anyone regularly who you trust enough to be a competent driver/gunner, whether they be from your corp or even just old friends? Coordination and Teamwork are the name of the game, work together with people you regularly play with to train complimentary skill sets and squad together to OMGWTFPWN everything that stands in your way (since we all realize that 1 dedicated driver and 1 dedicated gunner > 1 guy splitting his attention between driving and gunning). It is the most intelligent way to handle HAVs and you know it. It will create the balance where they can have a somewhat softer tank and be killed with AV coordination. Vehicles are stupid OP at the moment and if you can't admit that, I just don't know what to say to that. HAVs should require teamwork to become true threats on the battlefield. They don't currently, any jackass can hop into an HAV by themselves and run around owning infantry since CCP has buffed vehicles and nerfed AV as they have. I want HAVs to be able to become that true threat on the battlefield, though only for those who are willing and able to coordinate and work as a team. If all you want is to kick puppies (which is what HAV v Infantry currently is) by yourself, you should biomass, uninstall and go gank unsuspecting haulers and miners in Eve. We both have 30+mil SP, im reaching near 40mil SP and currently in vehicles we have about the same skills Why should i be able to run solo as infantry but not as a vehicle pilot? Thats like asking a logi bro to have a another player hold the repair gun, or making the FG a 2man operation I already use coordination and teamwork I like driving and gunning, but i dont want to be forced to do 1 or the other, maybe if its a specalized branch of tank then possible it could work because i could say no to it and stick to what ive got but also i would need vehicle locks and tbh i would also ask for a tank buff to it, if its taking 2 30+mil SP players to operate it and will cost more in ISK/SP then it better be damn worthwhile to use and be an improvement over the tanks we have now Vehicles arent OP, mostly infantry i find is currently stupid HAVs do use teamwork, i do its why im on comms looking out for the enemy tank i saw on the kill feed and planning an attack on it, you can solo with a tank but you will lose to a 2man team who is coordinating As for the solo lolAV players had that for 6months and claimed it was fine while they covered the map with invisible missiles from a tower on there own DUST514 seems to be DUST514 - A battlefield where all sorts of playstyles are being used and tanks are actually a factor and not a nonfactor like they used to be Intelligence is OP
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 1377	Posted - 2014.01.29 18:39:00 - [183] - Quote So you only every play with Spkr? You never play with anyone else? There are no new players who you might want to help out or teach the ropes to? What infantry can claim to have 6000+ EHP with hardeners that practically make them immune to nearly all incoming damage? Comparing Infantry running solo to HAVs running solo is like kittens to adult male tigers, it is a ridiculous comparison that has absolutely no merit since, 1:1 the potential of the HAV >>>>>>> the potential of Infantry. If your HAV only had the same fitting stats and EHP as a dropsuit; or the Infantry had the same fitting stats and EHP as an HAV, then it would be a reasonable comparison. The two do not equate in the slightest, not from a perspective of cost or stats. So the only reason you'd deny this as a balancing factor is that you like driving and gunning and don't want to have to choose one or the other? I never said that it should require 2+ 30m+ SP players work, just that it should take more than 1 player to be truly living up to its full potential. You assumed that I meant it should take both you and Spkr, I only said Spkr since I know that if both of you are on Dust, you're both in the same squad. While I will not deny that there is a large portion of stupid infantry in Dust, I can't believe that you are so blind to the disparity between Vehicles (specifically HAVs) and Infantry. Seriously, I find that to be mindboggling to such an extent that you must either be trolling or that you view Dust as WoT with infantry ants for you to squish. Personally, as far as AV is concerned, I feel that had vehicles been buffed to where they are now and AV left untouched, we would not have this disparity we currently have. Believe it or not, I do want HAVs to be a factor in Dust, though not to the extent that, were it not for Objectives that required infantry to be hacked, Infantry would be an nonfactor. English, are you purposely being obtuse about this? I mean, how can you think that there isn't anything wrong with the current state of Vehicles in Dust? I remember playing MAG with you and utilizing APCs as a part of the whole, not as the whole itself. We used teamwork with vehicles to compliment both styles of play, yeah we bitched when some stupid bluedot got in the Turret and gave away our position but the point is that we didn't solely rely on vehicles to the exclusion of infantry gameplay. Do you really care so little about this game that you'd rather the vehicle playstyle either becomes the only reasonable choice or the playerbase burns out on vehicle spam and moves on to other greener infantry pastures (thus killing the game)? Either way, if that is really how little you care about any playstyle other than the Vehicle playstyle why are you even here? AFAIK, there is better vehicle gameplay here, here or (coming soon) here. Any of which are also free and would give you the OMA vehicle FFA gameplay that you so obviously desire. Praise St. Arzad and Pass the Nanohives Karin Midular, gone, never forgotten Executing Amarr Trash since Closed Beta
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2328	Posted - 2014.01.29 18:53:00 - [184] - Quote I already have WoT, id love the TOG II to be in DUST be fun as ** * also really requires a stick, no way will i use KB i will just be terrible at it, WoS maybe good, could be like WoT except on the high seas If i can run solo as infantry dont see why i cant in a tank Generally if i want a gunner or a driver i want someone who is switched on and knows what the ** they are doing, plus if the mods are effected by the driver or gunner or whatever the higher skilled they are the better the tank performs, if i put a noob in the seat the cooldowns are at maximum and the fitting requirements go up etc With WoT i can move at 72MPH, be happy i cant do that DUST AV untouched - Swarms doing 3k+ per volley at 400m and covering the entire map from a tower - yeano MAG APC wasnt a tank, tho they did add in skills later on and i did nothing but drive around and into spawns and objectives annoying the ** out of ppl - The APC tho did take muliple ppl to kill it and did move fast but in MAG no one ever called this OP and gamebreaking even tho it spawned out infantry also Well DUST has been AR514 for sometime and then added in SCAN514 and now vehicles has evened it out some what even tho SCAN+AR514 is still in full flow Intelligence is OP
Unholy HateGore F.T.U. IMMORTAL REGIME 2	Posted - 2014.01.29 18:54:00 - [185] - Quote OverIord Ulath wrote: Then shouldn't they require the same number of people to run their tanks? I mean... If you are taking 3 people's attention away from focusing on winning the match just to deal with you, shouldn't you require the same number of people to distract them? Well that would be interesting. I like that idea.
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 1381	Posted - 2014.01.29 19:12:00 - [186] - Quote I notice that you ignore my assertions regarding comparing Infantry and HAVs and continue to compare them without refuting my assertion that comparing them is the same as comparing kittens and adult male tigers. Am I expected to believe that if you were in a match alone that you would have any open turret slots for bluedot noobs to get you killed with? You know as well as I do that 90% of the time (if not more) you play Dust, you've got at least 1 or 2 other people in squad with you. Are you telling me that you don't think Spkr or Estwood are "switched on and know what the **** they are doing"? Is that honestly how you feel about them? Even further, do you really not expect to ever play regularly with (and develop trust in) other people who might not be nearly so SP laden as the three of you are? I can only conclude that you must be trolling as I know that there is no other explanation for how obtuse you are being on the topic. Will you be happy when you and Spkr only have a handful of other tankers to play against? I bet CCP will love that, yeah, ~100 guys who might be spending cold hard cash for dev time and server space. Dust will lead a really prosperous existence then. Praise St. Arzad and Pass the Nanohives Karin Midular, gone, never forgotten Executing Amarr Trash since Closed Beta
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2333	Posted - 2014.01.30 16:34:00 - [187] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: I notice that you ignore my assertions regarding comparing Infantry and HAVs and continue to compare them without refuting my assertion that comparing them is the same as comparing kittens and adult male tigers. Am I expected to believe that if you were in a match alone that you would have any open turret slots for bluedot noobs to get you killed with? You know as well as I do that 90% of the time (if not more) you play Dust, you've got at least 1 or 2 other people in squad with you. Are you telling me that you don't think Spkr or Estwood are "switched on and know what the **** they are doing"? Is that honestly how you feel about them? Even further, do you really not expect to ever play regularly with (and develop trust in) other people who might not be nearly so SP laden as the three of you are? I can only conclude that you must be trolling as I know that there is no other explanation for how obtuse you are being on the topic. Will you be happy when you and Spkr only have a handful of other tankers to play against? I bet CCP will love that, yeah, ~100 guys who might be spending cold hard cash for dev time and server space. Dust will lead a really prosperous existence then. Why should infantry be allowed to solo but pilots cannot? I have 20+mil SP into vehicles yet i need someone else to make the vehicle viable, thats like having a assault with 20+mil SP and they need someone to use there primary weapon It doesnt matter if the pilot or the assault skilled into the weapon/turret and used there SP/ISK to obtain it because they cant use it yet they had to skill into it to use it or at least put it on the suit/hull That secondary person doesnt need to skill up for anything, its all on the driver to skill up for it and fit it so johnny ***** bluedot can hop in and spam it like a Even if i have to play with ppl i know what happens if no one wants to gun for me? that means my 20+mil SP into vehicles is mostly *** useless yet i could have the same amount into assault and be fine, its double standards at its finest It means i have to rely on a certain group of ppl but also it mainly means i have to drive and if i died because the gunner ** up the gunner is going to get it, where as if i die now on my own its mostly on me and i ** up somewhere but i dont want a secondary person to decide the fate of my tank because they cant shoot for ** Pre 1.7 there was only a handful of tankers then, there was less than 100 easily and that was during a time where tanking was expenisve as hell and nowhere near as rewarding while AV solo'd the majority and new tankers had no chance but the ones that stuck to it were also in PC fighting it out against OP AV and each other Now its all been changed up a bit and for the better, vehicles are in a better place and actually work Intelligence is OP
Nothing Certain Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 113	Posted - 2014.01.30 17:00:00 - [188] - Quote I disagree with almost all Takahiro says but I have no desire for tanks to be crew served. This would mean that mostly coordinated teams working together would run tanks . This isn't fair to tankers and it would make tanks even more deadly than they are now. Having to only concentrate on gunning or driving would make them both more effective. A gunner could hunt AV'ers with no concern about looking where they are going. No thanks. Face it, tanks are OP, they are intended to be OP, we almost all accept that, what we are arguing about is what we think makes a good, challenging game. I think Tak and Spkr' s viewpoints are so biased as to be unreasonable, but we are all just voicing our opinions about what we personally like. Their is no "objective balance point". Crew served weapons might be a good addition to the game though, a crew served forge that will OHK a tank would be cool.
Nothing Certain Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 113	Posted - 2014.01.30 17:13:00 - [189] - Quote Takahiro, above you say that in WoT you can move at 72 mph, and we should be glad you can't do that in Dust. When you say things like that it makes me realize how little thought or reasoning you have actually put into this topic, in Dust HAV's go almost 3 times that.
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 1436	Posted - 2014.01.30 17:36:00 - [190] - Quote English, do you not wear a dropsuit inside that HAV? I am willing to bet you do, even if it is a bpo suit with nothing more than a bpo gun. My point is this; you chose to spend 20m+ SP on something that amounts to a second dropsuit encasing your first. The assault with 20m+ sp invested in being infantry isn't choosing to invest sp in a second dropsuit with potentially the room for three. This is why he spawns in with only room for one in his dropsuit and absolutely zero potential to have anyone else to join him in that dropsuit. Tankers want that second dropsuit with that second set of weapons which is why you need to spend that extra SP on HAVs. Infantry can't bail from their dropsuit when they get deep into armor, tankers can. Infantry can't achieve 6000 ehp or more, tankers can. On foot, infantry cannot achieve the speeds that HAVs can. No single light weapon or even heavy weapon can achieve the raw damage output that HAVs can. What is the drawback to being encased in that mobile battlestation/panic room? I'd be willing to bet that HAVs are vastly more complex than dropsuits as well. Infantry are designed and intended to be able to solo. HAVs otoh, have the potential for multiple operators and accordingly have a higher potential to fulfill. Dropsuits individually achieve their maximum potential with only one operator (this can be enhanced through teamwork, though this isn't 100% necessary for dropsuits to achieve their full potential individually). HAVs are possessed of vastly more potential in many areas, in order for them to achieve their full potential, they should require multiple operators. The thought that a single operator can unlock a vastly greater amount of potential by themselves is silly and absurd. Since HAVs are force multipliers that bring much more to the table than 4 infantry can, I don't find it unreasonable for them to require 4 operators to achieve their full potential. They aren't solo pwnmobiles and shouldn't be despite how much you want them to be. If you want to solo in your HAV, you should be restricted to the potential achieveable by any single infantry Praise St. Arzad and Pass the Nanohives Karin Midular, gone, never forgotten Executing Amarr Trash since Closed Beta

Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2334	Posted - 2014.01.30 18:11:00 - [191] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: English, do you not wear a dropsuit inside that HAV? I am willing to bet you do, even if it is a bpo suit with nothing more than a bpo gun. My point is this; you chose to spend 20m+ SP on something that amounts to a second dropsuit encasing your first. The assault with 20m+ sp invested in being infantry isn't choosing to invest sp in a second dropsuit with potentially the room for three. This is why he spawns in with only room for one in his dropsuit and absolutely zero potential to have anyone else to join him in that dropsuit. Tankers want that second dropsuit with that second set of weapons which is why you need to spend that extra SP on HAVs. Infantry can't bail from their dropsuit when they get deep into armor, tankers can. Infantry can't achieve 6000 ehp or more, tankers can. On foot, infantry cannot achieve the speeds that HAVs can. No single light weapon or even heavy weapon can achieve the raw damage output that HAVs can. What is the drawback to being encased in that mobile battlestation/panic room? I'd be willing to bet that HAVs are vastly more complex than dropsuits as well. Infantry are designed and intended to be able to solo. HAVs otoh, have the potential for multiple operators and accordingly have a higher potential to fulfill. Dropsuits individually achieve their maximum potential with only one operator (this can be enhanced through teamwork, though this isn't 100% necessary for dropsuits to achieve their full potential individually). HAVs are possessed of vastly more potential in many areas, in order for them to achieve their full potential, they should require multiple operators. The thought that a single operator can unlock a vastly greater amount of potential by themselves is silly and absurd. Since HAVs are force multipliers that bring much more to the table than 4 infantry can, I don't find it unreasonable for them to require 4 operators to achieve their full potential. They aren't solo pwnmobiles and shouldn't be despite how much you want them to be. If you want to solo in your HAV, you should be restricted to the potential achieveable by any single infantry We have pilot suits yet to arrive, maybe special mods for pilots suits too, proto pilot suit will cost 2.5mil SP to acquire add that and any mods they introduce with it and thats more SP/ISK on top of the tank If the pilot bails from his tank he could be in a cheap BPO suit and gets gunned down, he may pop out in a proto suit but still get gunned down, either way he lost his tank anyways and was forced to go on foot, most pilots i know go down with the ship Infantry dont have hardeners Do you want infantry to have an engine strapped to there back? Breach FG - 2100DMG, Thats about the same as a railgun The drawback is im not as agile, i cant enter small spaces, i cant hack a point, i cant put down equipment, i cant rep infantry or even other vehicles, i cant fit through a doorway, i cant climb ladders, i cant instantly swap a suit at a depot, i dont have a sidearm, i cant evade scanners, i dont get points if i use a MCRU - just a few things 1 HAV = 4 Infantry your words not mine so lets see what we get 1 HAV = Generally can go rail = anti vehicle or blaster = anti infantry or even missile which is a little of both but generally can only cover 1 place at a time and depending where the objective is cant even protect it properly, if no MCRU no one spawns and if no scanner tank is blind but also to fit either maybe needs a compromise in defence or attack (turret) 4 man squad = Logi, Heavy, Assault, Scout - Just say 1 of each class or you could mix it up a bit, scout can be scout and solo sneak around objectives maybe hack and leave an RE, assault can ground pound and heavy can assault with logi backup or even point defence. This doesnt even cover what weapon each uses, what suit they are all, what fitting they have, what equipment they use, how mobile the squad is etc etc etc Many objectives the 4man squad can hold, sure the tank can kill but if no bluedots they will never hack it and never win unless we clone them which isnt often as you might think, ive been in games where tanks are like sharks but no infantry = loss. You want 4 operators, call it WoT where you have a Commander/Driver/Gunner and Loader or Radioman that means when i get a proto tank and fittings and the 4man HAV crew has 4 proto suits and all proto mods and stack with each other an enhance the vehicle by a factor of 4 then it will prob have a price hike to boot then that would mean you would at least need 4 proto AV all with prof 5 and proto suit with complex dmg mods on and according to you that would be balanced? Intelligence is OP
Drapedup Drippedout 0uter.Heaven Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive 258	Posted - 2014.01.30 18:19:00 - [192] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: So you only every play with Spkr? You never play with anyone else? There are no new players who you might want to help out or teach the ropes to? What infantry can claim to have 6000+ EHP with hardeners that practically make them immune to nearly all incoming damage? Comparing Infantry running solo to HAVs running solo is like kittens to adult male tigers, it is a ridiculous comparison that has absolutely no merit since, 1:1 the potential of the HAV >>>>>>> the potential of Infantry. If your HAV only had the same fitting stats and EHP as a dropsuit; or the Infantry had the same fitting stats and EHP as an HAV, then it would be a reasonable comparison. The two do not equate in the slightest, not from a perspective of cost or stats. So the only reason you'd deny this as a balancing factor is that you like driving and gunning and don't want to have to choose one or the other? I never said that it should require 2+ 30m+ SP players work, just that it should take more than 1 player to be truly living up to its full potential. You assumed that I meant it should take both you and Spkr, I only said Spkr since I know that if both of you are on Dust, you're both in the same squad. While I will not deny that there is a large portion of stupid infantry in Dust, I can't believe that you are so blind to the disparity between Vehicles (specifically HAVs) and Infantry. Seriously, I find that to be mindboggling to such an extent that you must either be trolling or that you view Dust as WoT with infantry ants for you to squish. Personally, as far as AV is concerned, I feel that had vehicles been buffed to where they are now and AV left untouched, we would not have this disparity we currently have. Believe it or not, I do want HAVs to be a factor in Dust, though not to the extent that, were it not for Objectives that required infantry to be hacked, Infantry would be an nonfactor. English, are you purposely being obtuse about this? I mean, how can you think that there isn't anything wrong with the current state of Vehicles in Dust? I remember playing MAG with you and utilizing APCs as a part of the whole, not as the whole itself. We used teamwork with vehicles to compliment both styles of play, yeah we bitched when some stupid bluedot got in the Turret and gave away our position but the point is that we didn't solely rely on vehicles to the exclusion of infantry gameplay. Do you really care so little about this game that you'd rather the vehicle playstyle either becomes the only reasonable choice or the playerbase burns out on vehicle spam and moves on to other greener infantry pastures (thus killing the game)? Either way, if that is really how little you care about any playstyle other than the Vehicle playstyle why are you even here? AFAIK, there is better vehicle gameplay here, here or (coming soon) here. Any of which are also free and would give you the OMA vehicle FFA gameplay that you so obviously desire. You do realize that a prof 3 FG can 4 shot thru 90% of tanks w/ hardeners activated? Only the most SP invested tankers take more than 1 clip, and at that, they should. This is what blows my mind, just because swarms cannot solo a tank, all tanks need nerfed? Dear infantry, I am not a tanker, I run AV. Get a MLT LAV, equip a scanner and nitrous on said LAV. Drive around and follow tank til dead or retreats to red line. Equip a rail turret for infantry and shields or a missle turret for general purpose. Grab 1 other squad mate. ENJOY YOUR +150, +50. Tanks are not near as bad as people are making them out to be. Every single merc in New Eden can call in a rail tank to destroy said tank. Then recall it just as easily and get on with life...
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 1437	Posted - 2014.01.30 18:45:00 - [193] - Quote English, there is an awful lot of conjecture in that post. I notice that you bring up the breach fg as an attempt to refute my assertion regarding "raw damage output". Correct me if I am wrong, don't breach fg sacrifice RoF and clip size for alpha? Even you state that it is "nearly" the output of a rail. Nearly =/= achieve. Over the course of one minute who does more damage; a fully loaded rail or a fully loaded breach fg? Though yes, overall I think that a crew served HAV on team would be balanced against a team that had no HAV that was up four infantry (one crew served HAV + 12 infantry v 16 infantry to be clear). I will address your conjecture no further than that. Praise St. Arzad and Pass the Nanohives Karin Midular, gone, never forgotten Executing Amarr Trash since Closed Beta
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 1711	Posted - 2014.01.30 18:46:00 - [194] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: English, do you not wear a dropsuit inside that HAV? I am willing to bet you do, even if it is a bpo suit with nothing more than a bpo gun. My point is this; you chose to spend 20m+ SP on something that amounts to a second dropsuit encasing your first. The assault with 20m+ sp invested in being infantry isn't choosing to invest sp in a second dropsuit with potentially the room for three. This is why he spawns in with only room for one in his dropsuit and absolutely zero potential to have anyone else to join him in that dropsuit. Tankers want that second dropsuit with that second set of weapons which is why you need to spend that extra SP on HAVs. Infantry can't bail from their dropsuit when they get deep into armor, tankers can. Infantry can't achieve 6000 ehp or more, tankers can. On foot, infantry cannot achieve the speeds that HAVs can. No single light weapon or even heavy weapon can achieve the raw damage output that HAVs can. What is the drawback to being encased in that mobile battlestation/panic room? I'd be willing to bet that HAVs are vastly more complex than dropsuits as well. Infantry are designed and intended to be able to solo. HAVs otoh, have the potential for multiple operators and accordingly have a higher potential to fulfill. Dropsuits individually achieve their maximum potential with only one operator (this can be enhanced through teamwork, though this isn't 100% necessary for dropsuits to achieve their full potential individually). HAVs are possessed of vastly more potential in many areas, in order for them to achieve their full potential, they should require multiple operators. The thought that a single operator can unlock a vastly greater amount of potential by themselves is silly and absurd. Since HAVs are force multipliers that bring much more to the table than 4 infantry can, I don't find it unreasonable for them to require 4 operators to achieve their full potential. They aren't solo pwnmobiles and shouldn't be despite how much you want them to be. If you want to solo in your HAV, you should be restricted to the potential achieveable by any single infantry It's a force multiplier, dude. There's a reason Panzer battalions were so feared. Tanks are supposed to be powerful and scary. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2342	Posted - 2014.01.30 18:53:00 - [195] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: English, there is an awful lot of conjecture in that post. I notice that you bring up the breach fg as an attempt to refute my assertion regarding "raw damage output". Correct me if I am wrong, don't breach fg sacrifice RoF and clip size for alpha? Even you state that it is "nearly" the output of a rail. Nearly =/= achieve. Over the course of one minute who does more damage; a fully loaded rail or a fully loaded breach fg? Though yes, overall I think that a crew served HAV on team would be balanced against a team that had no HAV that was up four infantry (one crew served HAV + 12 infantry v 16 infantry to be clear). I will address your conjecture no further than that. A breach is more than a railgun, add in a proto breach with 2 complex on it and im hitting 2.5k minimum Over the course of 1 min means **** since the tank is either dead or has rightfully gtfo because when i bring mine out 1 shot is enough to scare away every vehicle i hit You do know that now right now it is hard enough to find 2 proto AV players in the same match let alone wanting to find 4 proto AV ers which will have to chase that tank around for the entire game and will prob take close to 8 players to kill it if not the entire team if no proto AV exists Intelligence is OP
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 1437	Posted - 2014.01.30 19:02:00 - [196] - Quote Drapedup Drippedout wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: So you only every play with Spkr? You never play with anyone else? There are no new players who you might want to help out or teach the ropes to? What infantry can claim to have 6000+ EHP with hardeners that practically make them immune to nearly all incoming damage? Comparing Infantry running solo to HAVs running solo is like kittens to adult male tigers, it is a ridiculous comparison that has absolutely no merit since, 1:1 the potential of the HAV >>>>>>> the potential of Infantry. If your HAV only had the same fitting stats and EHP as a dropsuit; or the Infantry had the same fitting stats and EHP as an HAV, then it would be a reasonable comparison. The two do not equate in the slightest, not from a perspective of cost or stats. So the only reason you'd deny this as a balancing factor is that you like driving and gunning and don't want to have to choose one or the other? I never said that it should require 2+ 30m+ SP players work, just that it should take more than 1 player to be truly living up to its full potential. You assumed that I meant it should take both you and Spkr, I only said Spkr since I know that if both of you are on Dust, you're both in the same squad. While I will not deny that there is a large portion of stupid infantry in Dust, I can't believe that you are so blind to the disparity between Vehicles (specifically HAVs) and Infantry. Seriously, I find that to be mindboggling to such an extent that you must either be trolling or that you view Dust as WoT with infantry ants for you to squish. Personally, as far as AV is concerned, I feel that had vehicles been buffed to where they are now and AV left untouched, we would not have this disparity we currently have. Believe it or not, I do want HAVs to be a factor in Dust, though not to the extent that, were it not for Objectives that required infantry to be hacked, Infantry would be an nonfactor. English, are you purposely being obtuse about this? I mean, how can you think that there isn't anything wrong with the current state of Vehicles in Dust? I remember playing MAG with you and utilizing APCs as a part of the whole, not as the whole itself. We used teamwork with vehicles to compliment both styles of play, yeah we bitched when some stupid bluedot got in the Turret and gave away our position but the point is that we didn't solely rely on vehicles to the exclusion of infantry gameplay. Do you really care so little about this game that you'd rather the vehicle playstyle either becomes the only reasonable choice or the playerbase burns out on vehicle spam and moves on to other greener infantry pastures (thus killing the game)? Either way, if that is really how little you care about any playstyle other than the Vehicle playstyle why are you even here? AFAIK, there is better vehicle gameplay here, here or (coming soon) here. Any of which are also free and would give you the OMA vehicle FFA gameplay that you so obviously desire. You do realize that a prof 3 FG can 4 shot thru 90% of tanks w/ hardeners activated? Only the most SP invested tankers take more than 1 clip, and at that, they should. This is what blows my mind, just because swarms cannot solo a tank, all tanks need nerfed? Dear infantry, I am not a tanker, I run AV. Get a MLT LAV, equip a scanner and nitrous on said LAV. Drive around and follow tank til dead or retreats to red line. Equip a rail turret for infantry and shields or a missle turret for general purpose. Grab 1 other squad mate. ENJOY YOUR +150, +50. Tanks are not near as bad as people are making them out to be. Every single merc in New Eden can call in a rail tank to destroy said tank. Then recall it just as easily and get on with life... So you just need to match speed with the HAV in a heavy while holding a charge or running and gunning with a FG? Sounds so simple. Obviously if I need to stop to recharge or aim my fg, the HAV will not be able to speed away behind/under cover whatsoever. Oh, I can also call in a HAV to dispatch the enemy HAV? Yes, because I've devoted (as infantry) as many SP into vehicles and vehicle support skills to be able to easily dispatch a dedicated tanker. Why not just feed him points in either of those situations. If I am not jihad jeeping and am lucky enough to survive any appreciable amount of time chasing said tanke, all I can hope to achieve is to distract him and keep him away from the main focus of thr infantry battle so he isn't melting my teammates. Praise St. Arzad and Pass the Nanohives Karin Midular, gone, never forgotten Executing Amarr Trash since Closed Beta
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 1437	Posted - 2014.01.30 19:09:00 - [197] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: English, do you not wear a dropsuit inside that HAV? I am willing to bet you do, even if it is a bpo suit with nothing more than a bpo gun. My point is this; you chose to spend 20m+ SP on something that amounts to a second dropsuit encasing your first. The assault with 20m+ sp invested in being infantry isn't choosing to invest sp in a second dropsuit with potentially the room for three. This is why he spawns in with only room for one in his dropsuit and absolutely zero potential to have anyone else to join him in that dropsuit. Tankers want that second dropsuit with that second set of weapons which is why you need to spend that extra SP on HAVs. Infantry can't bail from their dropsuit when they get deep into armor, tankers can. Infantry can't achieve 6000 ehp or more, tankers can. On foot, infantry cannot achieve the speeds that HAVs can. No single light weapon or even heavy weapon can achieve the raw damage output that HAVs can. What is the drawback to being encased in that mobile battlestation/panic room? I'd be willing to bet that HAVs are vastly more complex than dropsuits as well. Infantry are designed and intended to be able to solo. HAVs otoh, have the potential for multiple operators and accordingly have a higher potential to fulfill. Dropsuits individually achieve their maximum potential with only one operator (this can be enhanced through teamwork, though this isn't 100% necessary for dropsuits to achieve their full potential individually). HAVs are possessed of vastly more potential in many areas, in order for them to achieve their full potential, they should require multiple operators. The thought that a single operator can unlock a vastly greater amount of potential by themselves is silly and absurd. Since HAVs are force multipliers that bring much more to the table than 4 infantry can, I don't find it unreasonable for them to require 4 operators to achieve their full potential. They aren't solo pwnmobiles and shouldn't be despite how much you want them to be. If you want to solo in your HAV, you should be restricted to the potential achieveable by any single infantry It's a force multiplier, dude. There's a reason Panzer battalions were so feared. Tanks are supposed to be powerful and scary. How many panzers were not crew served man? I am not saying that they shouldn't be powerful and scary, just that they shouldn't be solo pwnmobiles. Spkr, you know I want HAVs to be a factor, I just don't want them to make infantry a nonfactor save for objective hacking. I want to find a reasonable balance and I really think crew service is the way to do this. Praise St. Arzad and Pass the Nanohives Karin Midular, gone, never forgotten Executing Amarr Trash since Closed Beta
Gavr1lo Pr1nc1p TRA1LBLAZERS 339	Posted - 2014.01.30 21:34:00 - [198] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: It's a force multiplier, dude. There's a reason Panzer battalions were so feared. Tanks are supposed to be powerful and scary. Tanks are force multipliers just like a rapid fire infinite ammo orbital launcher is a force multiplier. Kills- Archduke Ferdinand Help Shields
Gavr1lo Pr1nc1p TRA1LBLAZERS 339	Posted - 2014.01.30 21:41:00 - [199] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: English, there is an awful lot of conjecture in that post. I notice that you bring up the breach fg as an attempt to refute my assertion regarding "raw damage output". Correct me if I am wrong, don't breach fg sacrifice RoF and clip size for alpha? Even you state that it is "nearly" the output of a rail. Nearly =/= achieve. Over the course of one minute who does more damage; a fully loaded rail or a fully loaded breach fg? Though yes, overall I think that a crew served HAV on team would be balanced against a team that had no HAV that was up four infantry (one crew served HAV + 12 infantry v 16 infantry to be clear). I will address your conjecture no further than that. A breach is more than a railgun, add in a proto breach with 2 complex on it and im hitting 2.5k minimum Over the course of 1 min means **** since the tank is either dead or has rightfully gtfo because when i bring mine out 1 shot is enough to scare away every vehicle i hit You do know that now right now it is hard enough to find 2 proto AV players in the same match let alone wanting to find 4 proto AV ers which will have to chase that tank around for the entire game and will prob take close to 8 players to kill it if not the entire team if no proto AV exists well then compare it in DPS. The breach forge gun has a very high charge time, less range, but the railgun has less than a second of charge time, is rapid fire, and has a lot of range and zoom, and does nearly as much damage, and you can stack damage mods that have no penalty to 1-2 shot most everything in the game. Also, I look forward to hearing a public apology from you, Tankahiro, due to you being blatantly wrong and continuing to insult my intelligence by arguing with me on another thread, and then simply refusing to post once you realized this instead of apologizing. I will post the thread for you. https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1783679#post1783679 Kills- Archduke Ferdinand Help Shields
ballistic surgeon Lost Millennium Canis Eliminatus Operatives 13	Posted - 2014.01.31 00:02:00 - [200] - Quote OverIord Ulath wrote: Then shouldn't they require the same number of people to run their tanks? I mean... If you are taking 3 people's attention away from focusing on winning the match just to deal with you, shouldn't you require the same number of people to distract them? They should give tankers first person view instead of third person view. If I cant see a scout running up behind me to slit my throat with NK, then tanks shouldnt be able to see someone planting RE behind them either.

Charlotte O'Dell Fatal Absolution Covert Intervention 1787	Posted - 2014.01.31 00:25:00 - [201] - Quote Ummm...noo....that won't solve the problem. Good tankers will still roll together and stomp all of you and you'll cry more. Try again. Charlotte O'Dell is the highest level unicorn!
Gavr1lo Pr1nc1p TRA1LBLAZERS 339	Posted - 2014.01.31 00:27:00 - [202] - Quote Charlotte O'Dell wrote: Ummm...noo....that won't solve the problem. Good tankers will still roll together and stomp all of you and you'll cry more. Try again. Yeah, but you also wouldnt have 13 infantry as well. Now you would only have 7 if you wanted 3x tanks Kills- Archduke Ferdinand Help Shields
OverIord Ulath Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 133	Posted - 2014.04.27 04:39:00 - [203] - Quote Awwww... my self perpetuating thread finally went ka-put! Well.... Since general discussions is completely devoid of anything interesting.... CoLeRy DoLeRy DiLlErY DrEaD! I pErFoRm NeCrOmAnCy On ThIs ThReAd!
jerrmy12 kahoalii Proficiency V. 1280	Posted - 2014.04.27 04:45:00 - [204] - Quote Charlotte O'Dell wrote: Ummm...noo....that won't solve the problem. Good tankers will still roll together and stomp all of you and you'll cry more. Try again. Not a chance My squad has many aces up its sleeve I <3 girl gamers Tears, sweet delicious tears
Pvt Numnutz R 0 N 1 N 1140	Posted - 2014.04.27 05:02:00 - [205] - Quote My tank does require 2-3 people to operate. I use a missile tank.
Temias Mercurial Knights Of Ender Galactic Skyfleet Empire 66	Posted - 2014.04.27 05:02:00 - [206] - Quote I don't know if anyone has said this, but couldn't we just introduce ADV and Proto vehicles to scale with AV properly? Balance will always be an issue when you only have one tier, that either has to be excessively overpowered, or excessively underpowered. There can never be an equilibirum. If we just reintroduced ADV and Proto tanks, introduced ADV and Proto tiers for the remaining vehicles and their varients, then we can achieve proper balance. OR We can remove tiers of AV and vehicles altogether, and follow the Eve system, which uses Tier 1 and Tier 2 assets. Others have suggested we do the same with infantry, and this may be more appealing to them, as it holds promise of greater balance than STD, ADV, and PRO assets.
Aszazel R 0 N 1 N 233	Posted - 2014.04.27 05:23:00 - [207] - Quote I don'teven low why I get on the forums anymore, its the 8 same posts every couple days.....
OverIord Ulath Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 140	Posted - 2014.04.27 05:28:00 - [208] - Quote Aszazel wrote: I don'teven low why I get on the forums anymore, its the 8 same posts every couple days..... Technically this is the same thread you may have read back in January. I just brought it back from the dead because the forums are boring right now. Also because all but like 4 of my likes came from this thread, and this thread tends to run itself if I step away for a few days.
Athena Sentinel SOE Knights Templar 284	Posted - 2014.04.27 05:47:00 - [209] - Quote buzzzzzzz killllllllll wrote: ccp should make it so the driver can only use the front turret, and a gunner can use the large turret Great Idea
Regis Blackbird DUST University Ivy League 165	Posted - 2014.04.27 06:10:00 - [210] - Quote Sigh... This again. I don't like the idea that the tank driver only "drives" the tank, since this will make the entire concept useless for solo players. I would prefer that the main turret on HAVs are mainly anti vehicle, and lousy against infantry. To tackle infantry, you should have to add small turrets (which should be really effective against infantry, but lousy against vehicles). This will leave tankers with two choices: 1) Only mount main turret and become an effective tank killing machine, but easily picked off by infantry if they get close. 2) Mount both main and small turrets to give you defence against infantry, but doing so will require 2-3 people to operate the tank. Just my 2 ISK

THEPIMP NAMED SLICKBACK THE BONERBOMBS 5	Posted - 2014.04.27 06:19:00 - [211] - Quote DeadlyAztec11 wrote: Aizen Intiki wrote: We plug ourselves into the HAV, so we can control many of the functions at the same time. Degraging ourselves to mortal ways of life is silly. no. You know what's also silly? Needing Proto AV to destroy Militia HAV's. LoL u need proto av to take a tank out all i need is a mimitar logi suit basic and adv proxys nanohive sum basic av nades plasma cannon all tanks pop.
Shion Typhon Intara Direct Action Caldari State 506	Posted - 2014.04.27 06:28:00 - [212] - Quote MrShooter01 wrote: Azura Sakura wrote: buzzzzzzz killllllllll wrote: ccp should make it so the driver can only use the front turret, and a gunner can use the large turret OMG! This will honestly make so many tankers mad but makes so much sense lol. I honestly never thought of that since it is a video game and all but I don't know if there is even a video game on the market that does that. The original Planetside was like this. There was a weak, fast tank called the lightning that could be operated solo, but the main battle tanks required a separate gunner and driver. Only one of those tanks even gave the driver control of a weak rapid fire weapon. If you wanted to roll around crushing people in a tank you either had to pick the small, fast one that would die when AV sneezed at it or you had to get a buddy to gun for your MBT (or hope a random in the gunner seat could shoot worth a damn). While they didn't carry that into PS2 they did make it that the Anti-Aircraft weapon on the top needed a gunner and AA is pretty much 100% required in PS2 so only low survivability MBTs roll without a second gunner.
Lorhak Gannarsein Science For Death 3020	Posted - 2014.04.27 07:20:00 - [213] - Quote Fucks sake. It should take 2-3 people to gib a tank. It is possible, and always has been possible, to solo a tank. If you can't you need to think about playing a different role. Hell, if I had a third AV nade still it'd be so damn easy to solo a tank it's not even funny. ak.0 // 4 LYFE I am the Lorhak // I speak for the trees. Jillic gave me my 3000th like!


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: [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.