DUST Search - reserved

All Channels

General Discussions

reserved

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance 455	Posted - 2014.01.27 23:54:00 - [1] - Quote reserved Nuff Said
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance 455	Posted - 2014.01.27 23:54:00 - [2] - Quote reserved Nuff Said
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance 455	Posted - 2014.01.27 23:55:00 - [3] - Quote reserved Nuff Said
Monkey MAC Lost Millennium 1684	Posted - 2014.01.27 23:55:00 - [4] - Quote First Tanks 514 I told you, I bloody well told you. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance 455	Posted - 2014.01.27 23:56:00 - [5] - Quote reserved Nuff Said
Scheneighnay McBob Learning Coalition College 3774	Posted - 2014.01.27 23:56:00 - [6] - Quote reserved I am your scan error.
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance 455	Posted - 2014.01.27 23:56:00 - [7] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: First you ass Nuff Said
killer carrot top Eternal Beings Proficiency V. 8	Posted - 2014.01.27 23:57:00 - [8] - Quote Not first or reserved
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance 455	Posted - 2014.01.27 23:57:00 - [9] - Quote reserved Nuff Said
Monkey MAC Lost Millennium 1684	Posted - 2014.01.27 23:57:00 - [10] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: First you ass My apologies, thought you were done Tanks 514 I told you, I bloody well told you. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1

Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance 462	Posted - 2014.01.28 00:08:00 - [11] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: First you ass My apologies, thought you were done lol, yeah, It takes forever with the spam prevention bullshit. Post wait 30 seconds, post wait 30 seconds lol. Nuff Said
gbh08 Intara Direct Action Caldari State 203	Posted - 2014.01.28 00:16:00 - [12] - Quote I've not read the whole thread yet, i will, im just going to point out "So basically, with max skills you can activate the second hardeners 15 seconds into the duration of the first, and maintain hardeners non stop. So a maxed tanker can essentially negate any amount of downtime needed. " That that ^ isnt true, unless you run 3 hardners, im not saying hardeners are acceptable as they are, there not, but with max skills theres a 5-6 second window with no hardeners, and again, im not saying thats cool, its far too short, but yeah, your wrong
Monkey MAC Lost Millennium 1685	Posted - 2014.01.28 00:18:00 - [13] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: First you ass My apologies, thought you were done lol, yeah, It takes forever with the spam prevention bullshit. Post wait 30 seconds, post wait 30 seconds lol. I slightly disgree with your point on rail turrets, while I see what you mean with the drawback. The Sniper has high alpha AND high range, the railgun which the sniper is modeled upon, then also gets a HROF, it gets a shotguns rate of fire. I move instead of taking range take overall DPS, a rail should pop almost all but the strongest vehicles in 3 shots, but having time to land 3 consecutive shots without fail is what will make the railgun balanced. This then means if you have superior positioning you can be popping tanks to the cows come home, but by the same stretch, if you charge in you won't have the rate of fire to compete at short range. Tanks 514 I told you, I bloody well told you. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
Scheneighnay McBob Learning Coalition College 3775	Posted - 2014.01.28 00:23:00 - [14] - Quote I have yet to test it, but I soon hope to give a full demonstration on how OP hardeners are. How? I managed to fit a dropship with a PAIR of 120mm armor plates- this thing has as much eHP as some of my HAVs. I will also fit one with a single 60mm plate and a hardener. I will fly each of them in front of an enemy railgun (hardener on, ofc) and see how many shots it takes to take down each. If the hardened one lasts longer than the one that has far more eHP than any dropship was meant to have (which will probably be the case), something is seriously wrong. I am your scan error.
Benjamin Ciscko The Generals General Tso's Alliance 1409	Posted - 2014.01.28 00:31:00 - [15] - Quote Waaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy Toooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo looooooonnnnnnnggggggggg tooooooooooooooooooooooooo readdddddddddddddddddddddddd............................................. Caldari Tanker/Minmatar Assault Forum warrior lvl 1
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance 465	Posted - 2014.01.28 00:40:00 - [16] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: First you ass My apologies, thought you were done lol, yeah, It takes forever with the spam prevention bullshit. Post wait 30 seconds, post wait 30 seconds lol. I slightly disgree with your point on rail turrets, while I see what you mean with the drawback. The Sniper has high alpha AND high range, the railgun which the sniper is modeled upon, then also gets a HROF, it gets a shotguns rate of fire. I move instead of taking range take overall DPS, a rail should pop almost all but the strongest vehicles in 3 shots, but having time to land 3 consecutive shots without fail is what will make the railgun balanced. This then means if you have superior positioning you can be popping tanks to the cows come home, but by the same stretch, if you charge in you won't have the rate of fire to compete at short range. I think the biggest distinction I can make here is the Vulnerability of said infantry sniper. A rail tank has full invincibility against small arms fire. A infantry sneaking up on a sniper, is not the same as an infantry sneaking up on a rail sniper. A tank rail sniper is FAAAR harder to dislodge when compared to a mere infantry sniper. What I'm more for though, isn't something as simple as taking damage while keeping range. It's about creating 2 different types of turrets that fulfill the same roles. Your range railgun, does say half the damage now, but let's say we double the range, reduce the heat cost and ROF, increase clip size. It doesn't hit very hard, but it shoots faster, able to fire more shots, and a larger clip to compensate. Your heavy hitter on the other hand, has reduced range, but the current damage, and a slower rate of fire, maybe more heat build up. Nuff Said
Wallaby1 The Southern Legion The Umbra Combine 79	Posted - 2014.01.28 00:43:00 - [17] - Quote wow my eyes is bleeding!! lol but good points , in my opinion tanks are fine its the AV weapons that need work because there to OP ...lol jk , but seriously AV weapons are a joke the swarms rof and range is laughable , the plasma cannon either needs a clip or mag instead of this 1 shot BS or maybe just make its trajectory more similar to a rail because those things are dang useless!! the forge guns seem to be doing a nasty amount of damage to my tanks so i cant complain about them , but seriously i feel like a douche just sitting there eating up 3 rounds of swarms and taking 500 dmg to my shields! its not very fair it takes at least 6 swarm volleys before im starting to run for cover!! not to mention i can pick off the av infantry 1 by 1 with a blaster so easily!!
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 529	Posted - 2014.01.28 00:49:00 - [18] - Quote Really long winded balancing post when half of the AV equipment isn't ingame yet... If you can read this, it means you are reading. Unless you are skimming
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance 467	Posted - 2014.01.28 00:59:00 - [19] - Quote Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote: Really long winded balancing post when half of the AV equipment isn't ingame yet... You are missing the point. Nuff Said
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 529	Posted - 2014.01.28 01:05:00 - [20] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote: Really long winded balancing post when half of the AV equipment isn't ingame yet... You are missing the point. Webifiers will slow down tanks. Electronic warfare will weaken hardeners... If you can read this, it means you are reading. Unless you are skimming

Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance 470	Posted - 2014.01.28 01:33:00 - [21] - Quote Wallaby1 wrote: wow my eyes is bleeding!! lol but good points , in my opinion tanks are fine its the AV weapons that need work because there to OP ...lol jk , but seriously AV weapons are a joke the swarms rof and range is laughable , the plasma cannon either needs a clip or mag instead of this 1 shot BS or maybe just make its trajectory more similar to a rail because those things are dang useless!! the forge guns seem to be doing a nasty amount of damage to my tanks so i cant complain about them , but seriously i feel like a douche just sitting there eating up 3 rounds of swarms and taking 500 dmg to my shields! its not very fair it takes at least 6 swarm volleys before im starting to run for cover!! not to mention i can pick off the av infantry 1 by 1 with a blaster so easily!! Hold up, I'm getting to that. The point here is that it's not as simple as pointing out one thing and fixing it. One thing like damage, has many variables applied to it. You think this is long winded What I want, is for tanks to be more vehicle vs vehicle focused and less on killing infantry. No the blasters shouldn't be an hmg in an invincible tank. I know how deadly blasters are, and with the current state of tanks, infantry can't deal with them. The way I'm currently thinking (mind you this is theory, and I'm liable to change my mind in the future) infantry act as support. But tanks have a lesser impact on infantry game, and are focused more on vehicles. But same as infantry provides "support" the tank provides "support" in turn. But the support must be equal, Infantry limited against tanks, tanks limited against infantry, as far as killing power goes. Nuff Said
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance 470	Posted - 2014.01.28 01:47:00 - [22] - Quote Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote: Really long winded balancing post when half of the AV equipment isn't ingame yet... You are missing the point. Webifiers will slow down tanks. Electronic warfare will weaken hardeners... Those are good additions, but at what cost comes with slowing the tank. What kind of counter can the tank use. Where do you lose out by slowing the tanker. For every gain, you need a loss. I don't think it's as simple as saying a factor is broken so adding a counter should fix it, but let's keep the broken factor. I can see things getting out of skew rather quickly. Basically with tanks, they stripped them down to the basics with the idea to build them back up from the ground up. The way I see it, they need to fix the current balance before they go about adding new things to the mess, which come with a mess of their own. Nuff Said
Lorhak Gannarsein 1342	Posted - 2014.01.28 01:56:00 - [23] - Quote So buff missiles for AV somehow, nerf blasters for AI and railguns across the board? Or rather, specialise the railguns? Happily printing ISK with permahardeners and MLT blasters. Just let me get a couple mil more before nerf, CCP!
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 4055	Posted - 2014.01.28 02:04:00 - [24] - Quote You sir get a cookie. But not peanut butter. *PEANUT BUTTER COOKIE MASTER COOKIE* So when are we gonna get those Matari Vehicles? Please don't be SoonGäó
Operative 1171 Aajli Bragian Order Amarr Empire 1098	Posted - 2014.01.28 02:06:00 - [25] - Quote Madrugar is a Gallente tank. Gallente are supposed to zoom in quick and fight close. Therefore, the speed mods need to be reduced in duration but provide a faster spurt of power to overcome initial torque. Right now they have longer duration with less speed. Rail is Caldari therefore it is supposed to be long range. It is BS right now that the rail is the best close range weapon too. Solution is to return the spool up time with the recharge time and quicker overheat along with a repeating feature like before that meant reduced damage for each subsquent shot. I shouldn't have to play dances with tanks so much at CQ with a rail and a rail user shouldn't feel comfortable in CQ. Right now no SP non-tankers are finding it way to easy to call in mil fit, one off rail dmg mod tanks and that is effectively closing out any other type of play. Why use anything else when the rail does it all? Also, this is giving tankers a bad name because non-tankers are complaining about tanks when the problem is non-tankers are taking advantage of mil tanks to gain a cheap advantage. If only skilled tankers could apply that power you wouldn't see the tank spam. Likewise, a mil or basic rail shouldn't have that long of a range. I'd like to see range added as a skill or module that increases therail range to the present range. Even better would be to have different ranges to the turret tiers. Standard would fire about one third the length of a map like iron Delta and the proto could reach to about three fourths. Make infantry happy and bring back a need to have a small turret gunner for effective anti infantry by reducing the large blaster RoF to more an anti vehicle, particularly LAV, role. I'd like to see only one small turret on the tanks and that would be on the top instead of defaulting to the front. Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I read your book!
Alena Ventrallis The Neutral Zone 529	Posted - 2014.01.28 02:07:00 - [26] - Quote Tanks should be for killing other vehicles, and LAVs - drop ships should be for anti infantry. They need to add dispersion to blasters large and small. Slow large blaster ROF. Give small blasters some target sticky whatever (not aim assist, but where the aimpoint slows down when over an enemy.) And large blasters get aim sticky, but only on other vehicles, not infantry. Then, LAVs are actually worth more than heavy transport. Perhaps even give LAVs a small buff to health. And tanks won't be instawin buttons (save against vehicles)
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance 471	Posted - 2014.01.28 02:39:00 - [27] - Quote gbh08 wrote: I've not read the whole thread yet, i will, im just going to point out "So basically, with max skills you can activate the second hardeners 15 seconds into the duration of the first, and maintain hardeners non stop. So a maxed tanker can essentially negate any amount of downtime needed. " That that ^ isnt true, unless you run 3 hardners, im not saying hardeners are acceptable as they are, there not, but with max skills theres a 5-6 second window with no hardeners, and again, im not saying thats cool, its far too short, but yeah, your wrong My math, Proto hardeners have a cooldown of 24 seconds. The skills at max gives you 25% to cooldown and uptime. So .25 * 24seconds = 6 + 24 = 30 seconds Downtime is 60 seconds, so 60 * .25 = 15, 60 - 15 = 45 seconds So I admit, I no doubt made a false statement. Total up time is 30 seconds per one mod and 45 seconds down Assuming we use them one at a time, there is an overlap. Individually no, grouped yes. So 15 seconds into the second mod, assuming you are using 2 hardeners, you can activate the the first mod again. So, with max skills, you can maintain at least one hardener most all of the time. The point though, is that hardeners last WAY TOO LONG. That's a full minute of uptime with 2 hardeners cycled, and before the second wears off, the first is cooldown, but after this inital cycle there will be a few seconds of down time. But not until after a full minute and a half though cycling hardeners. The point with 3 hardeners, is to maintain 2 when needed, at least one all the time. With skills this would be much easier, but I would think of a less SP invested tanker going this route, rather than one with the skills. Nuff Said
wripple WarRavens League of Infamy 118	Posted - 2014.01.28 03:38:00 - [28] - Quote More classes of HAVs perhaps? We saw standard, logo and scout LAVs in the past, each with their own set of pros and cons. Perhaps what we need is the introduction of logistics, assault and scout tanks. First, reduce turret damage and damage mod efficacy (you'll see why in a second) -Scout class will have lower module count and base HP, but move at current 1.7 HAV speeds. -Assault class will move marginally slower than scouts with similar 1.7 module count. Bonus to damage mods and turret damage per level of operation. -Logistics class will move at 1.6 HAV speeds or even slower, have higher base HP and should be the most expensive class. This should also have a reasonably useful built in module that will justify high cost and low mobility.
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance 473	Posted - 2014.01.28 13:49:00 - [29] - Quote Added a section on blaster, and a piece on Infantry vs Tanks. Nuff Said
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2304	Posted - 2014.01.28 14:19:00 - [30] - Quote Way too long with alot of gibberish Speed is fine - Get a LAV instead Hardeners are fine, you miss out on fitting other things Rails are supposed to be high alpha long range Missiles are fine, they are also high alpha and do well against vehicles Blasters are fine, mostly AI anyways because the other 2 turrets are crap Infantry are idiots, they expect to stand at the same point and kill tank after tank, if you want to kill a tank chase it ffs, if it moves use a damn lav, if its shield dont use swarms when its shiny etc etc etc All your examples are bias, tanks battles do not consist of both tanks meeting somwhere and then both activating everything at the same time so you only do 50% dmg to them The battles are tactics, you hit them when there hardeners are down, or bait them into your optimal, what happens if you miss a shot, what happens if its double tanked, what happens if you need to reload etc etc etc Intelligence is OP



Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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