DUST Search - Mortedeamor an update on tanks and solutions

Mortedeamor wrote:

Spkr4theDead wrote:

Mortedeamor wrote:

ok so i have again 3 million sp into tanks i am primarily infantry but i have specced armor as i am hoping soon to see my amarian tank.

i have toyed only with mlt rail and lp missisles on sicas and stnd gunlogi basic modules

now turrets in general need clip adjustments and scaling

i would like us to start with mlt blaster at 125 stnd 150 adv 175 proto 200.

currently i can kill about 25 infantry with mlt blaster before reloading.

stacking penalties for all modules

armor reppers
tank hardeners dmg mods (jason pearson hada good idea on this one the more hardeners you have fitted the longer they take to cool and the less then run as there is no resor dmg% amount penalty.)

also you can only run 1 nitro unit and i think its wrong to limit 1 module like that but not even have stacking penalties armor tankers should have the option to run 2 nitro units in they're highs

now missiles from stnd on they all seem pretty crazy strong in cqc an i think the clips should be scaled for both them and rails as well this gives less room for inaccuracy at lower lvls also a smaller overall dmg stream before reload

No, Jason has had some terrible ideas about modules. Why should I have to fit my tank the way someone else wants me to to get the maximum benefit out of the modules I choose? Why should I have to use one booster, one hardener and one extender on a Gunnlogi, or one plate, one repper and one hardener on a Madrugar? We'll have fewer ways to fit out tanks like that, and everything will be the same again, like previous builds.

jason may have had some different thoughts doesnt change the fact that it needs to happen or they should remove all suit stacking penalties..stacking penalties have always been a part of this game and that tanks have none is part of what makes them broken. also lower end turrets have way to high a kill stream 30 people dead a clip is high for mlt large blaster that needs to be lowered

they're should be a penalty for stacking modules


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Ninjanomyx Imperfects Negative-Feedback 548	Posted - 2014.02.04 00:54:00 - [1] - Quote Mortedeamor wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Mortedeamor wrote: ok so i have again 3 million sp into tanks i am primarily infantry but i have specced armor as i am hoping soon to see my amarian tank. i have toyed only with mlt rail and lp missisles on sicas and stnd gunlogi basic modules now turrets in general need clip adjustments and scaling i would like us to start with mlt blaster at 125 stnd 150 adv 175 proto 200. currently i can kill about 25 infantry with mlt blaster before reloading. stacking penalties for all modules armor reppers tank hardeners dmg mods (jason pearson hada good idea on this one the more hardeners you have fitted the longer they take to cool and the less then run as there is no resor dmg% amount penalty.) also you can only run 1 nitro unit and i think its wrong to limit 1 module like that but not even have stacking penalties armor tankers should have the option to run 2 nitro units in they're highs now missiles from stnd on they all seem pretty crazy strong in cqc an i think the clips should be scaled for both them and rails as well this gives less room for inaccuracy at lower lvls also a smaller overall dmg stream before reload No, Jason has had some terrible ideas about modules. Why should I have to fit my tank the way someone else wants me to to get the maximum benefit out of the modules I choose? Why should I have to use one booster, one hardener and one extender on a Gunnlogi, or one plate, one repper and one hardener on a Madrugar? We'll have fewer ways to fit out tanks like that, and everything will be the same again, like previous builds. jason may have had some different thoughts doesnt change the fact that it needs to happen or they should remove all suit stacking penalties..stacking penalties have always been a part of this game and that tanks have none is part of what makes them broken. also lower end turrets have way to high a kill stream 30 people dead a clip is high for mlt large blaster that needs to be lowered they're should be a penalty for stacking modules Tank Modules have always, and still do, have Stacking Penalties..... Many things you have stated in this Thread have proven to me you know very little of Vehicles..... Driving around in a Blaster Tank in Ambush, or Rage Quitting every Match you lose a LAV, does not make you a Vehicle Specialist. Your Sig has also negated any respect I may have had for you......& Pearson hasn't exactly made great strides in forming coherent suggestions as of late. The entire Suit & Vehicle Systems have been forced into separate Mechanics as of 1.7, & that has thusly broken any real chances we had for balancing. IMHO Damage Mods, Rail RoF, & Blasters are about the main culprits behind many of the issues posed to both Infantry & Vehicles. Hardener Stacking mainly frustrates Infantry AV. But even then.....our Turrets still suffer from some very flawed Mechanics (IE: Turret "Hugging" stops the ability to shoot, LoS not showing the actual destination of our projectiles, especially when terrain affects it....etc.) I see a few things that need actual "Tweaking", but not to such an extreme, that could define Roles better. Missiles could use a bit less Damage, Rails could have less RoF with a tad more Damage, & Blasters could have lower Efficiency vs Vehicles. This would, at the very least, give each Tank a more defined Role. Swarms could get a Range Lock Increase of 15-20% to bring them back in line. Now it would take a Missile Tank more time to kill a Blaster Tank, but with less fear of retaliation during reload, allowing the Blaster Tank a fighting chance to escape. Missiles become the primary Anti-Blaster Solution & control Enclosure Area Denial & Heavy Installation Killers (CRU/Supply Depot), while Rails remain Outskirt Area Denial & Anti-Air. Blasters now have a Focus as AI while sacrificing AV Capability. The Fitting Parity is also broken as you can fit a Shield Tank too easily. Every Viable Madrugar Fit requires a Complex CPU Upgrade & Max Skills to fit a STD Setup with a couple of ADV additions. My Gunnlogi on the other hand.....does wtf ever it wants, without Max Skills. I only have Shield Modules @ Lvl 3, no Fitting Optimization, & can fit 2x Basic Damage Mods, 1x ADV Shield Hardener, 1x Complex Armor Plates (Or Hardener), & 1x Basic Heavy Armor Rep........with a Proto Rail. This literally fills both my CPU & PG Bar. My Armor Fits always cap out CPU.....with at least 1/3 PG to spare.....using a Complex CPU Upgrade. This fits an ADV Rail, ADV Hardener, ADV Heavy Armor Rep, & 2x Basic Damage Mods. Drop everything to STD, except the CPU Upgrade, & I may fit a Proto Rail......ALL while at Max Fitting Optimization. JihadLAVs then have got to go.....otherwise none of these changes would matter.
Ninjanomyx Imperfects Negative-Feedback 549	Posted - 2014.02.04 15:01:00 - [2] - Quote Sextus Hardcock wrote: If you weaken the Blaster by making less effective VS vehicles, all we'll ever see is Rail tanks on the field. The primary solution is to reduce the AI effectiveness of all tanks, wether that be through reworking terrain (to give more hidey holes, tunnels etc) so that infantry can still operate without the need to kill tanks) or by reworking the actual tank weapons themselves. Tank survivability isn't really a big issue, its the ease and efficiency at which it kills infantry that is the unbalanced problem. Incorrect Reducing AV Effectivity of Blasters would not make it a "Railfest", especially if Rail RoF decreases. Only the truly Skilled would be able to manage AI Kills under the less spammable conditions, & Dropships would have a better chance to avoid an unskilled "Rail Kiddy". This solves 2 Issues right off the bat, & it gives a far less used Turret an actual Role, Missiles. Missiles "May" have some AI killing potential, but they lack the Ammo & Accuracy to reliably kill Infantry. If a Missile Tank spams to kill Infantry he loses valuable time Reloading before an AV Engagement occurs, & may very well end up without the reserves needed to take out a Hostile Vehicular Threat. The Blaster Effectivity vs Vehicles would obviously not be Zero.....which is what you make it sound like that is what is suggested. 33% Efficiency lost, give or take a few, would still put a Skilled Blaster Tanker in a place where it "Could" kill another Tank in CQC. I already do this vs Rails with a STD Blaster..... Adv Nitro, STD Damage Mod, 2x STD Armor Hardeners, a STD Heavy Rep, & STD Blaster is all I need to outmaneuver & pressure just about any Rail in CQC. This @ a cost of 167K ISK, making it High Survivability, Low Risk, High Reward.....& I don't have Blaster Fitting Optimization past 2.....or was it 3, I forget. Rail RoF Decrease means Misses will be far more punishing, putting only Skilled Pilots in Mid-Field with reliability of killing effectively. But then.....that is where the Missile Tank would shine. A maneuverable Missile Tank could easily chase off & kill a Low RoF CQC Rail under these conditions. This creates a "Triforce" among the current Turret Types, with Infantry AV being the "Wild Card". Also.....Infantry have plenty of "Hidey Holes". AI is still best done with a RR, CR, & SCR. You should try looking at the "Big Picture" before you make your assumptions as it seems you may be a Blaster Tanker who only saw "Nerf Blasters" when reading my Post. L2R KthxBAI. PS: You also missed the Swarm Suggestion.....since apparently you see only in "Blaster Vision".